353341GQF PHILOSOPHY CC2019 PC

353341GQF_PHILOSOPHY_CC2019_PC.indd iii 28/12/2020 07:59:23

10 P H I LO S O P H Y M A D E S L I G H T LY L E S S D I F F I C U LT

353341GQF_PHILOSOPHY_CC2019_PC.indd 10 28/12/2020 07:59:23

Modus ponens:

If p, then q If Mary has a sister, then Mary is a sibling.p Mary has a sister.Therefore q Therefore Mary is a sibling.

Modus ponens is perhaps the most intuitively obvious inference pattern; anyone who thinks about it will see that it is clearly valid.

The associated fallacy is that of affirming the consequent. One states a conditional, claims that the consequent is true, and concludes that the an-tecedent must be true. But this is clearly invalid:

If p, then q If Mary has a sister, then Mary is a sibling.q Mary is a sibling.Therefore p Therefore Mary has a sister.

(Of course, Mary could be a sibling who has only brothers.)

Modus tollens:

If p, then q If Mary has a sister, then Mary is a sibling.~q Mary is not a sibling.Therefore ~p Therefore Mary does not have a sister.

The associated fallacy here is denying the antecedent. Again, the fallacy should be clear:

If p, then q If Mary has a sister, then Mary is a sibling.~p Mary does not have a sister.Therefore ~q Therefore Mary is not a sibling.

Hypothetical syllogism:

If p, then q If it’s snowing, then it’s below 32°.If q, then r If it’s below 32°, then it’s cold.Therefore if p, then r Therefore if it’s snowing, then it’s cold.

Disjunctive syllogism:

p or q Either Bill is in his apartment or he is out.~p Bill is not in his apartment.Therefore q Therefore Bill is out.

Here the or statement (called a disjunction) is assumed to be true. So if one of the terms (“disjuncts”) is false, the other must be true. There’s an

W H E R E D O I S TA R T ? 11


associated fallacy here also, but it is not a formal fallacy—that is, it is not a matter of an incorrect form. It’s the informal fallacy of false dilemma:

p or q Either Bill is in his apartment or he is in the library.~p Bill is not in the library.Therefore q Therefore Bill is in his apartment.


Ethical Noncognitivism

Emotivism Prescriptivism

Imperativalism

Ethical Cognitivism

Subjectivism Objectivism

CulturalRelativism

IndividualRelativism

EthicalNonnaturalism

EthicalNaturalism

Figure 1. Types of ethical theories


Theory Object of Moral Evaluation

Principle Example(s)

Consequentialism The outcomes of acts The greatest good for the greatest number

Utilitarianism

Deontology The acts themselves Always do one’s duty Kantian ethics, divine command theory

Virtue Ethics The moral agent Act on virtues with sound judgment

Aristotle, Aquinas

Ethical Egoism The acts themselves Always seek one’s own interests

Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism”

Hedonism The outcomes of acts Always seek one’s own pleasure

Epicureanism

Stoicism The attitude of the agent

Accept one’s fate; be responsible for one’s own attitudes

Epictitus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca

Only the first three are serious contenders; the last three will not be discussed in the text.


Table 2. Compatibilist and libertarian freedom compared

Condition Compatibilist Libertarian

Ability 1. The ability is hypothetical. One could have done otherwise if one had different desires and beliefs.

2. The ability is one-way. At any time, one could not refrain or do otherwise.

1. The ability is categorical. It is not conditional on anything changing in order to obtain a different result.

2. The ability is two-way. At any time, one can either do something or refrain—both are genuine metaphysical possibilities.

Control 3. Freedom relies on a causal theory of action; that is, an action is under one’s control if it was caused in the right way by appropriate prior mental states (not unlike dominos falling).

4. The control is one-way.

3. Freedom requires a first, unmoved mover to originate action. Aristotle, for example, says that if a stone is moved by a staff, the staff is moved by a hand, and the hand is moved by a man, then the man is the efficient cause and the rest are instrumental causes.

4. The control is two-way.

Rationality 5. Reasons are efficient causes; that is, that by means of which an effect is produced. They are temporally prior to or simultaneous with a given effect. When Jones raises his hand to vote, the compatibilist says that a belief/desire state in Jones has caused his hand to raise to vote. It is useful to note that on this view, Jones does not actually do anything; he is merely a container of beliefs and desires. There are no actions on this view, only happenings.

5. Reasons are a final goal; that is, that for the sake of which an effect is produced. They are a desired future state.


FOR FURTHER READING

CHAPTER ONE: WHERE DO I START?

Foreman, Mark W. Prelude to Philosophy: An Introduction for Christians. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. (basic)

Kelley, David. The Art of Reasoning. 3rd ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1998. (intermediate)

Moreland, J. P., and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017. (intermediate)

Morris, Thomas V. Philosophy for Dummies. Foster City, CA: IDG Books, 1999. (basic)

CHAPTER TWO: WHAT IS REAL? METAPHYSICS

Connell, Richard. Substance and Modern Science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988. (basic)

Hasker, William. Metaphysics: Constructing a World View. Contours of Christian Phi-losophy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983. (basic)

Loux, Michael. Metaphysics. London: Routledge, 1998. (intermediate)Lowe, E. J. The Possibility of Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. (advanced)Moreland, J. P. Universals. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001. (advanced)van Inwagen, Peter. Metaphysics. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1993. (intermediate)

CHAPTER THREE: HOW DO I KNOW? EPISTEMOLOGY

Audi, Robert. Epistemology. New York: Routledge, 1998. (intermediate)Pearcy, Nancy R., and Philip E. Johnson, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its

Cultural Captivity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004. (basic)Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

(intermediate)Wood, W. Jay. Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous. Contours of Christian Phi-

losophy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998. (basic)


206 F O R F U R T H E R R E A D I N G

CHAPTER FOUR: HOW SHOULD I LIVE? ETHICS

Budziszewski, J. What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide. Dallas: Spence, 2004. (intermediate)Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001.

(intermediate)Rae, Scott B. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. 4th ed. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 2018. (basic)Wilkens, Steve. Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics: An Introduction to Theories of Right and

Wrong. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995. (basic)

CHAPTER FIVE: WHAT AM I? PHILOSOPHICAL

AND THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Churchland, Paul. Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984. (intermediate)

Cooper, John W. Body, Soul and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. (intermediate)

Hasker, William. The Emergent Self. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999. (advanced)Kim, Jaegwon. Philosophy of Mind. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1996. (intermediate)Moreland, J. P., and Scott B. Rae. Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. (intermediate)O’Connor, Timothy. Persons and Causes. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

(advanced)

CHAPTER SIX: HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS THINK

ABOUT SCIENCE? PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999. (intermediate)

Moreland, J. P. Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989. (intermediate)

Pearcey, Nancy, and Charles Thaxton. The Soul of Science. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994. (intermediate)

Ratzsch, Del. The Battle of Beginnings. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996. (basic)

———. Science and Its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective. Contours of Christian Philosophy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. (intermediate)

CHAPTER SEVEN: WHAT IS BEAUTY? AESTHETICS

Battin, Margaret P., John Fisher, Ronald Moore, and Anita Silvers. Puzzles About Art: An Aesthetics Casebook. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1989. (intermediate)

Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. New York: Macmillan, 1955. (basic)


F O R F U R T H E R R E A D I N G 207

Rookmaaker, H. R. Modern Art and the Death of a Culture. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973. (basic)

Scruton, Roger. Beauty: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. (intermediate)

Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Art in Action. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. (advanced)

CHAPTER EIGHT: WHAT SHOULD WE WORSHIP?

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

Craig, William Lane, and J. P. Moreland. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. (advanced)

Meister, Chad, and James K. Dew. God and Evil: The Case for God in a World Filled with Pain. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013. (basic)

Moreland, J. P., Chad Meister, and Khaldoun A. Sweis. Debating Christian Theism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. (advanced)

Peterson, Mishaal, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger. Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. (intermediate)

CHAPTER NINE: WHERE DO I GO FROM HERE?

WORLDVIEW STRUGGLE AND INTELLECTUAL CRISIS

Evans, C. Stephen. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith. Contours of Christian Philosophy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985. (basic)

Morris, Thomas V. Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology. Contours of Christian Philosophy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991. Reprint, Vancouver, BC: Regent College Pub-lishing, 1997. (basic)

Documents

353341GQF PHILOSOPHY CC2019 PC