DOCSLIB.ORG

Thanks Giving As a Meeting, January 27, 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thanks Giving As a Meeting, January 27, 2008 29 http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/willis_e_elliott/2007/11/thanksgiving_as_the_meeting_of.html Thanksgiving as the Meeting of Two Minds In the American year, Thanksgiving is the only day officially converging the Christian mind and the American mind—two minds, independent though inseparable, neither to be captive to the other. Another convergence on this day: the universal human impulse to give thanks and the universal celebration of harvest as expressive of this impulse. And one more convergence: as a universal festival with historic and geographical particulars, Thanksgiving is implicitly an occasion to give thanks for all festival comminglings of universals and particulars. Now to the “On Faith” question: “In a world torn by religious, ethnic and geopolitical conflict, what can we be thankful forthis Thanksgiving?” 1. We can be thankful for the increasing global recognition that our humanity is common. In 1943 I read Wendell Willkie’s just-published “One World.” How prescient he was! For failure to join the human race, the cost to individuals and collectivities is increasingly steep, and the nudge to unity is increasingly strong. Much that in the past motivated division is losing persuasive power, and much that the strong considered weakness is gaining in respectability—though we still have far to go before, in Jesus’ words, “the meek inherit the earth.” 2. We can be thankful for the increasing rapproachement between those historic sibling rivals, faith and reason. As religion has become stronger, atheists have become louder; but some prominent ones among them have surrendered their atheism. In 2003 prominent British atheist Antony Flew signed the atheist “Humanist Manifesto III,” which teaches evolutionism (“unguided evolutionary change”); but subsequently he has come to believe in a cosmic guidedness, a universal purpose verifiable by science. We may be witnessing the slow emergence of a common mind in our common humanity. 3. On this Thanksgiving Day, we Americans can be thankful for the freedom of religion from government interference and the freedom of government from dominance by any particular religion. And individually, we Americans can give thanks for the freedom to make our own mix of meanings, our own list of things to be thankful for, and to chose who shall be the Recipient of our thanks. But instead of extending this list, I want to sketch the two minds in this entry’s title. THE AMERICAN MIND can be glimpsed through our formative political documents and our rituals, both formed over against historic and contemporary alternatives. Communism was the most threatening alternative to our way of life when in 1954 President Eisenhower and Congress added “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. In contrast to atheist regimes and secularist philosophies, America was founded and continues to see itself as “under God,” though wisely the Constitution forbids any religious test for any political office. The ritual (official wordings) of Thanksgiving Day reveal the American mind as theocentric, centered on the biblical God, thankful to him for life, liberty, and hope. Though our population is the world’s most multi-ethnic, England is the mother country of our predominant religion and our predominant language. Our earliest thanksgiving ritual is in the 1619 English Virginia-colony charter stipulating the annual celebration of landing-day as a day to be “kept holy as a day of thanksgiving to Almighty God.” Two years later, English separatist Christians (who came to be called the Pilgrims) held a three-day thanksgiving of feasting, dancing, and merry- making with the Amerinds, whose farming skills had helped them survive their first winter. In the telling of the American Story, “Mayflower 1620” is the founding event, and the Mayflower Compact “in the name of God” is the earliest founding document. The other strand in the American mind is the Scottish-English Enlightenment, which added critical and structural reason to the biblical faith. Both strands of the American mind are in our founding documents and in the presidential proclamations of Thanksgiving Day. Here, I’ll indicate only that “thanksgiving” was understood as a liturgical word, a word technical to worship. It was not “being thankful” in a global-vague sense. It was one dimension of prayer. So our first president (in 1789) called for “a day of public thanksgiving and prayer.” And our now most honored president, Abraham Lincoln, proclaimed (in 1863) “a prayerful day of Thanksgiving” for “his [God’s] Providence.” While in population America is overwhelming a Christiancountry, we are by wise design not a Christian nation: we believe that for their best flourishing, religion and politics need structural protection from each other. But protection does not mean total non-influence. Thanksgiving Day is fundamentally a religious holiday, and our presidents have used “church” language in giving it “state” recognition: no impenetrable “wall of separation between church and state.” Finally, how does THE CHRISTIAN MIND differ from the American mind in answering this “On Faith” question, “what can we be thankful for?” I began a list of what the American mind is thankful for this Thanksgiving Day. The biblical mind’s answer is simpler: We should live lives of gratitude to God, thankful for everything—God’s dark gifts as well as his bright gifts. When Job had nothing after having had everything, he said (Job 1:21) “The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.” First Thessalonians 5:16-18 has the same triumphant transcendence: “Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.” Life, the whole of it, is a gift of God by nature; and the new life in Christ is God’s gift of grace, which rejoices that God has come to the world not only in Jesus but as Jesus, who accepted the dark gift of crucifixion and received the bright gift of resurrection. For the Christian mind, every day is thanksgiving day, and all acts of compassionate service to humanity and the good earth are return-gifts to the Giver of all. BY WILLIS E. ELLIOTT | NOVEMBER 26, 2007; 6:24 AM ETSAVE & SHARE: PREVIOUS: THANKFUL FOR LAND OF OPPORTUNITY | NEXT: THANKS TO THOSE WHO PAVED THE WAY Comments Please report offensive comments below. After reading all the responses here, it appears the concerns i would have voiced to Mr. Elliott have, by and large, been voiced. It also appears Mr Elliot is unable to appreciate much of the validity or saliency of any of these criticisms. To be charitable, his piece is titled "Thanksgiving *as* the Meeting of Two Minds" not "Thanksgiving *is* the Meeting of Two Minds." Tho he seems starkly unaware of any pre christian or non christian origins of Thanksgiving and tho he takes it upon himself to define the american mind, he does carry on as tho the holiday of thanksgiving *is* essentially the meeting of The American Mind and The Christian mind. Hence, this odd meeting of two prearranged so called minds or identities. Ultimately, his piece can only be read as a sort of monologue or diatribe. [Greek diatrib, pastime, lecture, from diatrbein, to consume, wear away : dia-, intensive pref.; see dia- + trbein, to rub; see ter-1 in Indo-European roots.] The Greek word diatrib, the ultimate source of our word, is derived from the verb diatrbein, made up of the prefix dia-, "completely," and trbein, "to rub," "to wear away, spend, or waste time," "to be busy." The verb diatrbein meant "to rub hard," "to spend or waste time," and the noun diatrib meant "wearing away of time, amusement, short ethical treatise or lecture." And, from his responses, it would appear there is little that passes "as" or for a meeting with the minds in this forum. This is kind of disturbing,especially concerning thanksgiving and especially coming from a self titled "teacher" .... -mason POSTED BY: MASON | JANUARY 27, 2008 3:05 PM REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENT Mysterium tremendum et fascinans.. "From about half past ten in the evening to about half an hour after midnight: FIRE. G_d of Abraham, G_d of Isaac, G_d of Jacob, Not the G_d of philosphers and scholars. Absolute Certainty.Beyond reason. Joy. Peace. Forgetfulness of the world and everything but G_d. The world has not known Thee, but I have known Thee. Joy. Joy. Joy. Tears of Joy. and Love bade me welcome, yet my soul drew back, Guilty of dust and sin. But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack From my first entrance in, Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning If I lack'd anything. "A guest," I answered, "worthy to be here"; Love said, "You shall be he." "I, the unkind, the ungrateful? ah my dear, I cannot look on Thee." Love took my hand and smiling did reply, "Who made the eyes but I?" "Truth, LORD, but I have marred them; let my shame Go where it doth deserve." "And know you not," says Love, "who bore the blame?" "My dear, then I will serve." "You must sit down," says Love, "and taste my meat." So I did sit and eat." Who explains the unexplainable? But- Keep trying. Keep trying. POSTED BY: ANONYMOUS | NOVEMBER 30, 2007 7:10 PM REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN -- 10.29.07 PAGANPLACE 11.28 / 10:03p In light of your claims, I carefully reread my “thanksgiving” entry, which mentions a number of things we Americans can ALL be thankful for. All of this thanking I see as “real.” But I could not find what you quote me as having written: “There can be no real thankfulness without submitting to [My God].” I repeat: I can’t imagine my uttering such narrowness of spirit & mind.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lebel Lecture in Christian Ethics, March 6, 2006 What Are They Saying About Conversion?
    Lebel Lecture in Christian Ethics, March 6, 2006 What are they Saying about Conversion? New Insights, Many Models By Douglas H. Shantz, PhD, University of Calgary Introduction 1. The Importance of this Topic There are several factors behind my choice of topic this evening. For one, conversions are in the news. There have been media reports of such famous converts as Anne Rice the novelist, Naomi Wolf the feminist, and Antony Flew the philosopher. Last October 31, Newsweek magazine reported, “Anne Rice: Queen of the Occult Finds God.” At age 64 Rice, the onetime chronicler of vampires and witches, has apparently returned to the Catholic Church she left at age 18, and says all her future books will be written “only for the Lord.” After experiencing a diabetic coma in 1998, the death of her husband of 41 years in 2002, almost dying herself in 2004, and sinking into despair, she now views Christ as the ultimate hero.1 Her most recent book is, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt, a novel about the 7 year old Jesus as narrated by Christ himself. This past January 22, 2006 an article in the Sunday Herald began: “Naomi Wolf, one of America’s foremost feminist thinkers, has found a spiritual awakening in God after experiencing a ‘mystical encounter’ with Jesus.” “The most widely read feminist of her generation,” Wolf is best known as the author of The Beauty Myth, her 1991 book against the cosmetics industry. In therapy recently for writer’s block, while practicing meditation, she experienced a holographic (three dimensional) image of Jesus.
    [Show full text]
  • There Is a God
    godthere is a How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese contents Preface v introduction 1 part i: my denial of the divine 7 1. The Creation of an Atheist 9 2. Where the Evidence Leads 31 3. Atheism Calmly Considered 65 part ii: my discovery of the divine 83 4. A Pilgrimage of Reason 85 5. Who Wrote the Laws of Nature? 95 6. Did the Universe Know We Were Coming? 113 7. How Did Life Go Live? 123 8. Did Something Come from Nothing? 133 9. Finding Space for God 147 10. Open to Omnipotence 155 iii iv contents Appendices 159 Appendix A The “New Atheism”: A Critical Appraisal of Dawkins, Dennett, Wolpert, Harris, and Stenger Roy Abraham Varghese 161 Appendix B The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N.T. Wright 185 Notes 215 About the Author Praise Credits Cover Copyright About the Publisher preface “ amous Atheist Now Believes in God: One of World’s FLeading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence.” This was the head- line of a December 9, 2004, Associated Press story that went on to say: “A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.” Almost immediately, the announcement became a media event touching off reports and commentaries around the globe on radio and TV, in newspapers and on Internet sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophia Christi Vol
    PHILOSOPHIA CHRISTI VOL. 9, NO. 2 © 2007 Antony Flew’s Deism Revisited A Review Essay on There Is a God GARY R. HABERMAS Department of Philosophy and Theology Liberty University Lynchburg, Virginia There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. By Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese. New York: HarperCollins, 2007. 256 pages. $24.95. When preeminent philosophical atheist Antony Flew announced in 2004 that he had come to believe in God’s existence and was probably best con- sidered a deist, the reaction from both believers and skeptics was “off the chart.” Few religious stories had this sort of appeal and impact, across the spectrum, both popular as well as theoretical. No recent change of mind has received this much attention. Flew responded by protesting that his story really did not deserve this much interest. But as he explained repeatedly, he simply had to go where the evidence led. Some Background It was this last sentence, repeated often in interviews, that really inter- ested me. Having known Tony well over more than twenty years, I had heard him repeat many things like it, as well as other comments that might be termed “open minded.” He had insisted that he was open to God’s existence, to special revelation, to miracles, to an afterlife, or to David Hume being in error on this or that particular point. To be truthful, I tended to set aside his comments, thinking that while they were made honestly, perhaps Tony still was not as open as he had thought.
    [Show full text]
  • "The Presumptuousness of Atheism" by Paul Copan
    "The Presumptuousness of Atheism" by Paul Copan Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist." 1Unless compelling reasons for God’s existence can be given, there is the "presumption of atheism." Another atheist, Michael Scriven, considers the lack of evidence for God’s existence and the lack of evidence for Santa Claus on the same level. 2However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be presumptuousness . The Christian must remember that the atheist also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate below. First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true. 3The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists." 4 Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner. 5The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists").
    [Show full text]
  • On Flew's Compatibilism and His Objections to Theistic Libertarianism
    On Flew’s Compatibilism and His Objections to Theistic Libertarianism 2015/25 115 Kaygı Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi Uludağ University Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Philosophy Sayı 25 / Issue 25│Bahar 2015 / Fall 2015 ISSN: 1303-4251 Research Article Araştırma Makalesi Hakan GUNDOGDU* Doç.Dr. | Assoc.Prof.Dr. Gazi University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, Ankara-Turkey [email protected] On Flew’s Compatibilism and His Objections to Theistic Libertarianism Abstract Flew strongly defends a compatibilist thesis in the free will debate before going on to totally object to theistic libertarianism. His objections basically rely on his compatibilism embracing the notion of agent causation, which is not very common in compatibilist theses. Since he is a strong proponent of ordinary language philosophy, he also holds that linguistic analyses can certainly solve the free will problem as well as many other problems of philosophy. In doing so, he first uses the paradigm cases based on our common sense experience and then assumes the verity of principle of alternative possibilities. This study attempts to show, on the one hand, that there are some serious difficulties in both his justification of compatibilism and his objections to theistic libertarianism, and on the other hand, that he cannot easily defend both at the same time. Keywords Antony Flew, Compatibilism, Free-Will, Agent, Causation, Theistic Libertarianism, Paradigm Case Argument, Principle of Alternative Possibility. * This study was funded by the Scientific and Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK): 2219 / 1059B191400716. On Flew’s Compatibilism and His Objections to Theistic Libertarianism 116 2015/25 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergentism As an Option in the Philosophy of Religion: Between Materialist Atheism and Pantheism
    SURI 7 (2) 2019: 1-22 Emergentism as an Option in the Philosophy of Religion: Between Materialist Atheism and Pantheism James Franklin University of New South Wales Abstract: Among worldviews, in addition to the options of materialist atheism, pantheism and personal theism, there exists a fourth, “local emergentism”. It holds that there are no gods, nor does the universe overall have divine aspects or any purpose. But locally, in our region of space and time, the properties of matter have given rise to entities which are completely different from matter in kind and to a degree god-like: consciousnesses with rational powers and intrinsic worth. The emergentist option is compared with the standard alternatives and the arguments for and against it are laid out. It is argued that, among options in the philosophy of religion, it involves the minimal reworking of the manifest image of common sense. Hence it deserves a place at the table in arguments as to the overall nature of the universe. Keywords: Emergence; pantheism; personal theism; naturalism; consciousness 1. INTRODUCTION The main options among world views are normally classifiable as either materialist atheism, pantheism (widely understood) or personal theism. According to materialist atheism, there exists nothing except the material universe as we ordinarily conceive it, and its properties are fully described by science (present or future). According to personal theism, there exists a separate entity (or entities) of a much higher form than those found in the 2019 Philosophical Association of the Philippines 2 Emergentism as an Option in the Philosophy of Religion material universe, a god or gods.
    [Show full text]
  • The Presumption of Atheism Antony Flew
    The Presumption Of Atheism Antony Flew 1. What it is, and why it matters At the beginning of Book X of his last work The Laws, Plato turns his attention from violent and outrageous actions in general to the particular case of undisciplined and presumptuous behaviour in matters of religion: We have already stated summarily what the punishment should be for temple-robbing, whether by open force or secretly. But the punishments for the various sorts of insolence in speech or action with regard to the gods, which a man can show in word or deed, have to be proclaimed after we have provided an exordium. Let this be it: "No one believing, as the laws prescribe, in the existence of the gods has ever yet performed an impious action willingly, or uttered a lawless word. Anyone acting in such a way is in one of three conditions: either, first, he does not believe the proposition aforesaid; or, second, he believes that though the gods exist they have no concern about men; or, third, he believes that they can easily be won over by the bribery of prayer and sacrifice" (§885B). [1] So Plato in this notorious treatment of heresy might be said to be rebuking the presumption of atheism. The word 'presumption' would then be employed as a synonym for 'presumptuousness'. But, despite the interest of the questions raised by Plato, the term has in my title a different interpretation. The presumption of atheism which I want to discuss is not a form of presumptuousness. Indeed it might be regarded as an expression of the very opposite, a modest teachability.
    [Show full text]
  • Reason, Induction and Cuasation in Hume's Philosophy
    Dialogues with Hume presented by The Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities Reason, Induction, and Causation in Hume’s Philosophy Don Garrett and Peter Millican Celebrating Hume’s Tercentenary David Hume was born in Edinburgh in 1711, attended the University of Edinburgh from 1723, and died in Edinburgh in 1776, having meanwhile achieved worldwide fame as an historian and philosopher. He and his associ­ ates were at the heart of the intellectual, literary and cultural events that are now known as the Scottish Enlightenment and he is generally recognised as the greatest philosopher ever to write in English. Today his work is studied by scholars from all over the world. Although Hume wrote in the 18th century, his works continue to be influential across many fields of scholarship and remain uncommonly relevant to the philosophical disputes of the 21st century and a wide range of current public concerns. It is fitting, therefore, that the 300th anniversary of his birth should be celebrated in Edinburgh in 2011 and the University of Edinburgh is hosting a programme of events throughout the year. As part of this, IASH has organised a series of seminars entitled Dialogues with Hume as follows: Emeritus Professor Peter Jones (University of Edinburgh): Conversation: And the Reception of David Hume Gathering Uncertainties: A conversation between playwright Linda McLean and Professor Susan Manning. Professor Daniel Schulthess (University of Neuchâtel): Hume and Searle – the ‘is/ought’ gap vs. speech act theory Dr. James Harris (University of St. Andrews): Hume’s intellectual development – an overview A dialogue between Professor Don Garrett (New York University and Carnegie Centenary Professor, IASH) and Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Faith, Language, and the Problem of Evil
    ! .,, •- \- j- / , .. \" / FA ITlI, LANGUAGE' .AND THE PROBLEfI OF. EVIL' " • • ... z ' ! " . © Osmond Ge9rge Ramberan 1974 (, .. \ \ " \"." To my mQther Suzanna, Q , who first taugl1t . mc of t"" layc of God, and I To'my daughtcr, Alicia, I in whom tllis love is m~ wholl y manifest. , ) \ \ " Ii , , / DOCTOR OF.PHILOSOPIIY ([973) McMASTER UNIVERS IT'\, ) (Religious Studies) Hamill'on, Ontario, TITLE: Faith, Language, ~n~ ~~lem of Evil· , , AUTHOR :" osmond~eOrge Rambe,?D.,~. B.A., (UniVerSity: of Saskatchewan, .. ) Saskatoon Campus.) / M.A., '(McMaster .University) ( SUPERVISOR: Professor I.G. Weeks' NUMBER OF PAGES: viii, 217. ,,-crr J ... ", , • '. ".~ " .. iii • , '. ABSTRACT The problem of evil is meant to show that the propositions ,'1 • "C (A) "God exists and is alr-eood and ol1U1ipotent," ~'nd (B) "There is , , t evil in the world," are loeieally inconsistent and incompatible. Formulated in.this way, the problem of evil confront,s theism with the -.Ioilowine dilemma. If, on-the one ,hand, it can be shown ,that proposi- , , tions (A) and (B) arc logically incompatible, therein lies a proof 'of , atheism and the end of theism as a rational enterprise. If, on the ) other hand, propositions (A) and (B) are, not logically incomp,aUble, r then reJigious and theologi~al utterances become, 'on the basis of AntoJ:>y Flew's 'falsil)cation challenge, vacuous and meariingle~s, and are, at bert., pseudo-assertions. The purpose of this -study is to attempt to resolve the above- I \ mentioned dilemma by attacking both horns; that is, by showine that both alternatives are in fac.t false. It is are~ed that propositions , (A) and (B) are not logica~ly incompatible and that, a~thoueh (B) docs not falsify or count aeainst (A), religious laneuage is noneth"cless meanineful.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Philosophy
    St. Jerome’s University in the University of Waterloo Department of Philosophy Syllabus Fall Term 2019 Course: PHIL 230J – GOD AND PHILOSOPHY: Section 001 Instructor: Professor Nikolaj Zunic Class Times: 10:00 am – 11:20 am on Mondays and Wednesdays Class Location: SJ1 3016 Office: SH 2003 [Sweeney Hall on the St. Jerome’s Campus] Phone: (519) 884-8111 ext. 28229 E-mail: [email protected] Office Hours: Mondays and Wednesdays: 9:30 am – 10:00 am and 2:30 pm – 3:30 pm; and by appointment: please e-mail the professor. Required Text Brian Davies, Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology, Oxford University Press, 2000. [ISBN 978-0-19-875194-6] Course Description Does God exist? Can God’s existence be proven? What is God’s essence? What is the human being’s relationship to God? What is faith? Is it possible to know God? Is God-talk meaningful and coherent? Does God have a rightful place in philosophical discourse? These are some of the many questions and problems that will be investigated in PHIL 230J: GOD AND PHILOSOPHY this term. As the title of the course suggests, we will be exploring the relationship between God “and” philosophy, generally speaking, not simply a philosophical concept of God. The emphasis should be placed on the conjunction which signifies a relation. To be sure, the reality of God is much greater than what is conceived within the parameters of philosophy alone. Blaise Pascal famously distinguished between the “God of the prophets” and the “God of the philosophers”. Bearing this in mind, we will endeavour to investigate the full reality of God, rather than merely what philosophers consider God to be.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Qualifying Exams in Philosophy of Religion (As of Fall 2009)
    Guidelines for Qualifying Exams in Philosophy of Religion (as of fall 2009) The Philosophy of Religion area offers four qualifying examinations: PR 1 – The Modern Background; PR 2 – Anglo-American Philosophy of Religion in the Twentieth Century; PR 3 – Continental Philosophy of Religion in the Twentieth Century; and PR 4 – Comparative Philosophy of Religion. Students concentrating in Philosophy of Religion are required to take PR 1, and one of the two examinations focused on particular thinkers and trends from the twentieth century: either PR 2 or PR 3. The faculty expects students who concentrate in Philosophy of Religion to do a third qualifying examination that emphasizes work in the field. For students pursuing a program of comparative work, this will normally be PR 4 (resulting in a set of exams as follows: PR 1, either PR 2 or PR 3, and PR 4). Students working on Indian Buddhist materials, for example, may take the exam listed below in “Indian Buddhist philosophy of the scholastic period.” For students not pursuing a program of comparative work, the third exam will normally be the second exam in twentieth-century materials (resulting in a set of exams as follows: PR 1, PR 2, and PR 3). In some cases, students not pursuing a program in comparative work may select as the third exam one of those offered by the Committee on Constructive Studies (“Metaphysics”; “Hermeneutics and Religious Reflection”; or the one in “Issues in Contemporary Theory”). Requirements for completion of Divinity School qualifying examinations include the stipulation that the student’s examining committee include at least four examiners.
    [Show full text]
  • C.S. Lewis's Critique of Hume on Miracles
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Asbury Theological Seminary Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 25 Issue 2 Article 3 4-1-2008 C.S. Lewis's Critique Of Hume On Miracles Robert A. Larmer Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Larmer, Robert A. (2008) "C.S. Lewis's Critique Of Hume On Miracles," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 25 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol25/iss2/3 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. C. S. LEWIS'S CRITIQUE OF HUME'S "OF MIRACLES" Robert A. Larmer In this article I argue that C. S. Lewis is both a perceptive reader and trenchant critic of David Hume's views on miracle. Despite his popularity as a Christian apologist and despite the fact that one of his major works is Miracles: A Preliminary Study, C. S. Lewis is virtually ignored in contemporary discussions of miracles. When he is mentioned, he is usually quickly dismissed as displaying a superficial understanding of David Hume's famous criticism of the possibility of rational belief in miracles based on testimonial evidence. My contention in this article is that such dismissals are unjustified.
    [Show full text]