The other night when I was talking to my friend, I told her that to use a sports analogy, it's in the second half, nearing the end of the third quarter, and I'm behind. In order for me to finish well this semester I will have to perform a come from behind victory. This is possible, I had a slight come from behind victory in a class last semester, but I also lost a lead in another class.
So here are my potential paper topics later on this semester.
Truth-Conditional Pragmatics - the role of pyschological factors in semantic content
Aristotle Survey - Aristotle's use of modal logic
Epistemology Survey - modal epistemology (this is the one paper topic that I'm most vague on, hence, this weekend will be spent reading modal epistemology)
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Monday, March 28, 2005
Michigan State
My Spartans are back where they belong - in the FINAL FOUR!!!
Go Spartans... though I don't have much hope that they will beat UNC, but that is ok, at least they made the final four. While beating Duke and Kentuckey in the tournament.
Go Spartans... though I don't have much hope that they will beat UNC, but that is ok, at least they made the final four. While beating Duke and Kentuckey in the tournament.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Wore Out!!
I've been really tired since arriving in Norman, OK after spring break. While I was on spring break I was attempting to write a paper on Aristotle and enjoy spring break... this is something that I'll never attempt again. Either work on my paper or enjoy spring break - but not both.
So, I really don't have much to say, other than I've been really tired, but now I'm repeating myself.
So, I really don't have much to say, other than I've been really tired, but now I'm repeating myself.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Back from Vail
Sorry about the AWOL without any warning. I went to Vail for Spring Break. Skied, tubed, and worked on a paper. Anyway, I'll start posting again. Sorry for not warning anyone.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Jonathan Edwards & Justification by Faith
Most baptists would affirm the reformed doctrine of justification by faith. We traditionally define this doctrine as, one doesn't have to do good works to receive salvation from God. This view is usually held against the Roman Catholic (RC) view of salvation, in which protestants claim that RCs hold to salvation by works, i.e. people have to do things to earn their salvation. This is clearly a charicature of RC theology. If you examine the RC beliefs and doctrines they actually assert that grace comes from God to allow us to do good works, but in the end, for a RC salvation comes from the grace of God.
The view that most anti-calvinist baptist pastors hold to is similar to the RC view. Baptists will claim that you have to 'accept Jesus' into your heart. Or they will claim that you need to 'choose God'. Often these pastors and preachers act as if salvation hinges upon an individual making a choice, namely that of choosing to accept Christ. I think that this would need more elaboration, but it seems true that arminian or anti-calvinist pastors have more in common with RC than they do with Calvinist protestants.
Jonathan Edwards viewed justification by faith as a calvinistic doctrine. The only way that one can avoid salvation by works is to hold to the belief that salvation is solely the act of God. If we have to choose God in order to be saved, then it seems that we must do something in which to facilitate our salvation. For Edwards and other calvinists, calvinism defends the doctrine of justification by faith.
This has always seemed to be self-evident to me from the scriptures. I'm glad to know that I stand in the same camp with the greatest American theologian - Jonathan Edwards. This is also a humbling doctrine for many to believe. If there is nothing that we have done to facilitate our salvation, then how much more do we owe thanks to God? Most often, people are just too proud to admit that they would have accepted Christ without intervention by God in the person of the Holy Spirit.
The view that most anti-calvinist baptist pastors hold to is similar to the RC view. Baptists will claim that you have to 'accept Jesus' into your heart. Or they will claim that you need to 'choose God'. Often these pastors and preachers act as if salvation hinges upon an individual making a choice, namely that of choosing to accept Christ. I think that this would need more elaboration, but it seems true that arminian or anti-calvinist pastors have more in common with RC than they do with Calvinist protestants.
Jonathan Edwards viewed justification by faith as a calvinistic doctrine. The only way that one can avoid salvation by works is to hold to the belief that salvation is solely the act of God. If we have to choose God in order to be saved, then it seems that we must do something in which to facilitate our salvation. For Edwards and other calvinists, calvinism defends the doctrine of justification by faith.
This has always seemed to be self-evident to me from the scriptures. I'm glad to know that I stand in the same camp with the greatest American theologian - Jonathan Edwards. This is also a humbling doctrine for many to believe. If there is nothing that we have done to facilitate our salvation, then how much more do we owe thanks to God? Most often, people are just too proud to admit that they would have accepted Christ without intervention by God in the person of the Holy Spirit.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Slackin' off
Well, to all of my readers I apologize for my lax behavior with my blog. For now I have a couple of thoughts.
Jonathan Edwards life - wow, I am inspired. If I ever have a job at a seminary or a Christian evangelical college I will definitely teach a class on the philosophical/theology of Jonathan Edwards. He is definitely pietistic and revivalistic, yet he tempers both of these emotional aspects of his theology with a serious rationalism. George Marsden, the writer of Edwards biography, claims that Edwards was both a medieval and a modern, almost standing in the gap between the two. I have definitely learned a lot about how I would like to do things if I were a pastor.
I'm writing a paper on Aristotle and propositional attitudes. Here's an example of propositional attitudes
Lois Lane loves Superman
Superman = Clark Kent ('=' means identical)
Lois Lane doesn't know that Superman = Clark Kent
Therefore, Lois Lane Doesn't love Clark Kent
What Aristotle claims is that if Lois Lane loves Superman, then logically she loves Clark Kent. Aristotle makes a claim like this:
S knows that Fa
a is the same in essence as b
________________________
S knows that Fb
Aristotle's view is similar to that of John Stuart Mill, or should I say John Mill's view is similar to that of Aristotle's? Anyway, Aristotle's view seems somewhat counterintuitive. If S doesn't know that Fa = Fb then how can S know Fb? This is what confuses me, it seems to make sense, but there is something that seems wrong. If we allow this substitution in the belief of S from Fa to Fb then we can allow this. Let me give a story to explain why I don't think that Aristotle or Mill's view of names works.
Let's say that Commissioner Gordan needs to inform Batman that the Joker has kidnapped Barbara Gordan. So while Bruce Wayne and Commissioner Gordan are having dinner, Commissioner Gordan excuses himself from dinner so he can turn. on the Bat Signal to inform Batman about the kidnapping. Yet, what Commissioner Gordan doesn't know is that Bruce Wayne is identical to Batman. So, unbeknownst to Bruce Wayne the Joker has kidnapped Barbara Gordan, because he is having dinner with Commissioner Gordan and not aware that Commissioner Gordan has turned on the Bat Signal. So, even though Commissioner Gordan wants to inform Batman about the kidnapping, he doesn't inform Bruce Wayne about this while they are having dinner, because Commissioner Gordan doesn't know that Bruce Wayne is identical with Batman.
Jonathan Edwards life - wow, I am inspired. If I ever have a job at a seminary or a Christian evangelical college I will definitely teach a class on the philosophical/theology of Jonathan Edwards. He is definitely pietistic and revivalistic, yet he tempers both of these emotional aspects of his theology with a serious rationalism. George Marsden, the writer of Edwards biography, claims that Edwards was both a medieval and a modern, almost standing in the gap between the two. I have definitely learned a lot about how I would like to do things if I were a pastor.
I'm writing a paper on Aristotle and propositional attitudes. Here's an example of propositional attitudes
Lois Lane loves Superman
Superman = Clark Kent ('=' means identical)
Lois Lane doesn't know that Superman = Clark Kent
Therefore, Lois Lane Doesn't love Clark Kent
What Aristotle claims is that if Lois Lane loves Superman, then logically she loves Clark Kent. Aristotle makes a claim like this:
S knows that Fa
a is the same in essence as b
________________________
S knows that Fb
Aristotle's view is similar to that of John Stuart Mill, or should I say John Mill's view is similar to that of Aristotle's? Anyway, Aristotle's view seems somewhat counterintuitive. If S doesn't know that Fa = Fb then how can S know Fb? This is what confuses me, it seems to make sense, but there is something that seems wrong. If we allow this substitution in the belief of S from Fa to Fb then we can allow this. Let me give a story to explain why I don't think that Aristotle or Mill's view of names works.
Let's say that Commissioner Gordan needs to inform Batman that the Joker has kidnapped Barbara Gordan. So while Bruce Wayne and Commissioner Gordan are having dinner, Commissioner Gordan excuses himself from dinner so he can turn. on the Bat Signal to inform Batman about the kidnapping. Yet, what Commissioner Gordan doesn't know is that Bruce Wayne is identical to Batman. So, unbeknownst to Bruce Wayne the Joker has kidnapped Barbara Gordan, because he is having dinner with Commissioner Gordan and not aware that Commissioner Gordan has turned on the Bat Signal. So, even though Commissioner Gordan wants to inform Batman about the kidnapping, he doesn't inform Bruce Wayne about this while they are having dinner, because Commissioner Gordan doesn't know that Bruce Wayne is identical with Batman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)