USUPhilosophy

In anticipation of my lecture Tuesday, I thought I’d offer a preview.

This will be a “big-picture” sort of talk. The big picture is this. I think that, given the available evidence, it is reasonable to adopt the view of “scientific naturalism” — namely, that the world is pretty much as science describes, Einstein and Darwin are largely right, and there are no ‘supernatural’ forces at play in the world. (Of course, science can always turn out to be wrong, but right now there’s little reason to think it is.) But that leaves very little room for most ancient religions — including Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism (in some versions) and Islam. So, if you accept scientific naturalism, religion has to change.

One possible change is to go the route of Spinoza, and “water down” religion so it ends up fitting with science. But the changes are severe: you have to give up divine creation, the soul, and providence. The other possible route is Nietzsche’s, and give up on religion altogether. But there is a cost here as well, since I don’t think it is obvious that naturalism provides enough of a foundation for morality. So, it’s a dilemma.

UPDATE: Thanks to those who were able to attend, and offer comments and raise questions. If you weren’t able to make it, but are interested, here are an mp3 recording of the lecture and the accompanying PowerPoint presentation:

Huenemann on Spinoza vs. Nietzsche

Spinoza/Nietzsche PowerPoint

Ric Machuga gave a fascinating lecture yesterday. His main claim is that in order for there to be meaning in the world, there has to be an immaterial intellect. “Meaning” here isn’t anything fancy; it is just the phenomenon of a set of symbols meaning something, like the way that the word “tool” means tool. You can find a copy of his paper here. Professor Machuga has offered to check this website from time to time, so he’ll respond to any questions or objections you post!

can be found here. Not quite as interesting as the last one, I think, though there is a discussion of philosophers’ scruffy appearances.

This topic has come up a couple of times in classes, so I thought I’d post it and see what responses we get. The question is about philosophical arguments, of course, not yelling matches followed by fisticuffs. (If you’re not sure about the difference, see the Monty Python clip over in the VodPod, on the right.) Here are some initial attitudes, for priming the pump:

A “YES” answer: yes, arguments can change minds. Once in a while, someone presents a sets of reasons we accept, and logic requires us to adopt the conclusion. It may not be immediate — the conversation may take weeks, but eventually the force of the reason gets us to change our minds.

A “NO” answer: no, arguments don’t work. Beliefs are based on many factors, including how one was raised, what one’s friends believe, emotional stuff, etc. When someone presents an argument to you, and you change your mind, it’s not the argument that does it. Rather, you were already disposed toward changing your mind, and the argument just gives you the “excuse” for doing so. Arguments merely justify beliefs you already have; they don’t give you those beliefs.

What do you all think?