Welcome!

Dear Students,

I hope to post here at least once a week for the remainder of the course. Most of the posts will be further thoughts on the readings or topics we are investigating, and some will include info that will help you master the material. I will do my best to alert you to the latter kinds of posts. Please feel free to comment on anything I write up, and you are welcome to post something of your own if you feel so inclined.

Here's the syllabus for our course:

Instructor Information:          
Dr. David E. Alexander
Phone:  359-4305 

Email: dalexander@huntington.edu

Office Location: LB 223
Office Hours: Email me for a specific time, or I will be on campus all day MWF (roughly 9-5).  Please feel free to stop by my office anytime I am in it.  

Course Description:                
This is a survey course in philosophical theology.  As such, we will cover a number of different topics.  The course is divided into three different sections.  

The first section will cover topics in what is now called analytic philosophical theology.  We will have some latitude regarding topics in this section.

The second section will deal with the philosophical and theological notion of love.  In this section of the course, we will read through Soren Kierkegaard’s book Works of Love.  This book is incredible from start to finish.  It is, however, fairly difficult at times. But with some patience on our part, we will get through it together.  I am convinced that this book can change your life if you let it.  

The third and final section of the course will deal with some philosophical and theological themes relating to moral psychology. The book we will read in this section extends some of the themes from the second section and will introduce us to various issues at the intersection of theology, philosophy, and psychology.     

Because the second section of the course will cover a fairly difficult reading we will approach it quite differently than the readings in the other sections.  

Course Objectives:
1. To introduce students to various methods of approaching theological questions philosophically and philosophical questions theologically
2. To demonstrate the relevance of thinking philosophically about traditional theological issues
3. To help students gain a deeper understanding of some of the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity
4. To help students learn how to engage in critical and polemical discussion in a charitable manner
            
Textbooks Required:
Soren Kierkegaard, Works of Love
Robert Roberts, Spiritual Emotions: A Psychology of Christian Virtues

Requirements:             
One Paper (100 points): (3000-3500 words).  This paper is your opportunity to present and critically evaluate a position presented in one (or more) of the texts.  I will provide you with some paper topics (you are not required to write on one of the topics I give. If you do not choose one of the topics I give, you must get your topic approved by me) and paper-writing guidelines.  You must follow the guidelines in order to receive a passing grade on your paper. 

You are required to submit your topic along with the first paragraph of your paper 2 weeks prior to the due date
You are required to submit a thorough outline of your paper along with a one-paragraph summary of each of your sources 1 week prior to the due date. 

Participation: Since this a 300-level philosophy course, your participation is crucial both to your success and the overall atmosphere of the class.  I realize that not everyone is a philosopher.  Your participation in class will take many forms.  

Reading Outlines/Focused Papers (100 points): Below is a list of the readings we will do this semester.  You must have done the readings before you come to class.  

In order to help facilitate classroom discussion and your own growth you must either outline all but 2of the readings in the first section of the course or write up focused papers (see below) on all but 2of the readings in the first section of the course or mix and match (do a few outlines and a few focused papers that total to all but 2of the readings in the first section of the course). 

Outlines: There is no page min or max, but the outlines should cover the entire reading.  These outlines are due at the end of the class on the day of the reading and may not be turned in late.  You must be in class (on time) in order to turn in these outlines.  If you are not in class, do not try to turn in an outline.  Do not email an outline to me.  Assessment: I will notify you if you need to rewrite your outline; otherwise I will not hand them back. I am always available to talk about one of your outlines if you’d like. Lastly, you must type your name, the title of the course and the number of outlines you have completed in the header of the paper (see me if you do not know what this is).  The header should look something like this:

John Johnson
Philosophical Theology
Outline #7

Focused Papers: These must be at least 600 words (you may go over 600). As you read, an argument or claim made in the text might be so interesting (or crazy or wrong or whatever) that you would like to focus your attention on it. You must complete the reading, but you may write up a short paper that attempts to explain the point in the text more deeply, draw out additional implications of the point, refute the point, etc. 

In-Class Presentation(100 points total): Groups of students will give two10-minute presentations on the readings we do in the second section of the course.  The presentation should attempt to provide a summary of the reading along with at least two questions or comments for us to consider.  You must turn in a typed summary (it can be outline in form) along with your questions/comments. In addition, every student must come to class every day (minus 2) with at least two questions based on the reading. These must be typed out and emailed to me at least one hour prior to our class.

Philosophy and…: During the third section of the course, students have the option of doing reading outlines, focused papers, or explicitly connecting the content of this section of the course to other areas—music, movies, books, other classes, your major, etc.  During this section, you are free to be as creative as you would like provided that you draw on the content of the readings.  You must do something for all but 2 of the chapters.  You may, with my approval, do something that covers multiple chapters.  100 points.

Attendance: From the instructor's point of view, your first and primary responsibility is academic.  Accordingly, I expect you to manage your time with this in mind.  You are expected to be in class, to have studied the assignment, and to have your work ready. Research and my experience strongly suggest that your understanding of the material will be hindered by your absence and will be increased by your presence in class.  Your reading and homework assignments are on the course schedule below.  2 percentage points will be deducted from your final grade for each absence beginning with the fourth.  Students missing one-quarter of the course (or more) will automatically fail.  2 tardies = 1 absence 

Final Exam: The final will be comprehensive.  It will be a take-home final due at the time that the regular final is scheduled. 100 points

Course Schedule:  This course syllabus is subject to revision as needed.  We may get seriously behind at some points.  We will adjust accordingly.

Date
Course Topic
Homework Assignment 
Section 1
Week 1
8/27-31



Week 2
9/3-7
No class Mon

Differences and Disagreement



Scripture

For Wed: Plantinga:http://carnivalsage.com/articles/apologist/plantinga-alvin-pluralism-defense-of-religious-exclusivism.html

For Wed: Davis: The Bible is True
For Fri: Wolterstorff: True Words


Week 3
9/10-14


Week 4
9/17-21


Trinity



Atonement



For Mon: van Inwagen: Three Persons
For Fri: Leftow: A Latin Trinity

For Mon: Crisp
For Wed: A defense of penal substitution

Section 2
Week 5
9/24-28

Works of Love


For Mon: Author’s Preface, Prayer, and Love’s Hidden Life and Its Recognisability by Its Fruits (xxvii-34)
For Wed: You Shall Love (34-58)

Week 6
10/1-5

Works of Love

For Mon: You Shall Love Your Neighbor (58-73)
For Wed: You Shall Love Your Neighbor (73-99)

Week 7
10/8-12
Works of Love
For Mon: Love Is the Fulfilling of the Law (99-136)
For Wed: Love is a Matter of Conscience (136-153)
For Fri: Our Duty to Love Those We See (153-171)

Week 8
10/15-19
NO CLASS MON
Works of Love
For Wed: Our Duty to Be in the Debt of Love to Each Another (171-199)
For Fri: Love Builds Up (199-213) 




Week 9
10/22-26
Works of Love
For Mon: Love Believes All Things and Yet Is Never Deceived (213-231)
For Wed: Love Hopes All Things and Yet Is Never Put to Shame (231-247) 
For Fri: Love Seeks Not Its Own (247-261)


Week 10
10/29-11/2
Works of Love

For Mon: Love Hides the Multiplicity of Sins (261-279)
For Wed: Love Abides (279-292) 
For Fri: Mercifulness… (292-306)


Week 11
11/5-9

Works of Love

For Mon: The Victory… (306-317)
For Wed: The Work of Love… (317-330) 
For Fri: The Work of Love… (330-344)


Section 3
Week 12
11/12-16
No Class Mon & Wed


Spiritual Emotions


For Fri: Intro thru Ch. 2

Week 13
11/19-23
No class Wed & Fri


Spiritual Emotions

For Mon: Ch.3

Week 14
11/26-30

Spiritual Emotions

For Mon: Ch.4
For Wed: Ch.5&6
For Fri: Ch.7


Week 15
12/3-7


Final

Spiritual Emotions
Paper Due Monday



For Mon: Ch.8
For Wed: Ch.9
For Fri: Ch.10&11

Take Home Final



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Problems of the One and the Many

As I mentioned in class the other day, there are a bunch of problems that can be categorized as being related to the problem of the one and the many. The basic issue is that when oneness is prioritized, manyness gets cut out and when manyness is prioritized oneness gets cut out. Or put differently, when unity is most fundamental, diversity gets eliminated and when diversity is most fundamental, unity gets eliminated.  Let’s consider some examples:  Ethics : Making individuals more fundamental than communities results in communities being sacrificed for the sake of the individual. My interests, desires, hopes, etc take precedence over those of the community. If the individual is most fundamental, then it is permissible for the individual to prioritize her interests over those of the community. Making the community more fundamental than the individual results in individuals being sacrificed for the sake of the community. The community’s interest, desires, hopes, etc tak...
Read more

The Intellectual Arbitrariness Objection to Religious Exclusivism: version 1

Here is my presentation of the objection: The objection here claims that we have an epistemic duty to treat like cases alike: if the evidence I have for p is the same (or similar) to the evidence that you have for ~p, then we should suspend belief with respect to p and ~p. Response 1:   The evidence will, in many or most cases, not be relevantly similarly. The phenomenology (the way the evidence is experienced by the subject) will be different, and thus the internal evidence will be different. Different rankings of evidence will be likely resulting in different overall assessment of the evidence.  Reply:  But those who deny (1) and (2) may have the same phenomenology and whatnot so that there really is relevant similarity—all the way down to how the evidence feels and is assessed. Think of two different detectives with the exact same evidence, same experience on the job, same level of intelligence, etc. and yet they each arrive at a different conclusion. I...
Read more

The Intellectual Arbitrariness Objection: Version 2

Suppose you had been born in Saudi Arabia. If you had been you would have been a Muslim. Suppose you had been born in India. If you had been you would have been a Hindu. Suppose you had been born... If you had been, you would have been... Considerations like these can quite easily give rise to the thought that your current religious beliefs (e.g. that God exists, that Jesus is his son and is the savior of the world, ...) are in some sense arbitrary. You are not justified in thinking that the religious beliefs that you actually have are true and thus that every belief that is incompatible with them is false. After all, you only believe what you do because of a kind of accident of birth. This gives rise to the following principle:  If  S 's religious or philosophical beliefs are such that if  S  had been born elsewhere and elsewhen, she wouldn't have held them, then those beliefs are produced by unreliable belief-producing mechanisms and hence have no war...
Read more