This book is a dandy — a little social commentary full of Chesterton’s ever-so-fun-and-clever humor and incredible way of making you realize that the ways in which we humans think is often the exact opposite of what we ought to think. The content is, I suppose, a bit dated… it is intended for the turn-of-the-century (the last turn, not this one) English reader; as such, issues such as women’s suffrage might appear to be entirely culturally irrelevant. If read in its historical context, however, it can function both as a history lesson and poignant (in its time) social commentary. And, needless to say, as with all truly good observations about something in the past, there is a good deal which is extremely pertinent to the current social condition… even in those things that might appear outmoded. A good read. ~ Fred Schultz
Karen Stone (Augsburg Fortress Press: Mar 2003), 160 pages.
Go
"Many people are frustrated at their first encounter with a work of art
that seems inscrutable or meaningless," notes artist/art educator Stone
(Univ. of Texas). "I have a passion to help those who want to be less
confused by the art they see to find meaning in art and even, through
their encounter with art, to discern in it the Spirit's voice." With
this lofty goal, Stone looks at art as the embodiment of the
transcendent, providing specific tools to help the general reader look
at a work of art in a more detailed and meaningful way (with
observations on color, form, composition, etc.), as well as to find a
spiritual meaning and connection to the work of art. Employing a
Judeo-Christian perspective, she shows how the communal experience of
visual art can transform the visible Word to the prophetic Word. She
uses examples from Velazquez (Las Meninas), Picasso (Guernica), Goya,
Van Gogh, herself, and others and encourages readers to seek examples
of their own from art books, galleries, and museums. A thoughtful
combination of art appreciation and spiritual aesthetics. ~ Marcia Welsh, Dartmouth Coll., for Library Journal
Go
Online resources, information, and media. Habermas is distinguished professor and chair of the Department of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University. Habermas has dedicated his professional life to the examination of the relevant historical, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus. His extensive list of publications and debates provides a thorough account of the current state of the issue. Christian believers as well as unbelievers may find within the contents of this site a strong argument for the philosophical possibility of miracles and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, as well as the theological and practical implications of this event.
Go
"This blog is about faith & culture and features the musings of Jim and Amy Spiegel (and occasional special guests of whom we are fond or at least don’t despise). Each month we post, in some form or another, on theology, philosophy, current events, books, film, and music. Read at your own pace and pleasure. Interact with us. Floss daily. Jim Spiegel holds a PhD from Michigan State and is a professor of philosophy at Taylor University. He is the author of several books, a popular speaker, and a self-produced musician."
Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein (Penguin Group: Feb 2009), 320 pages.
Go
A groundbreaking discussion of how we can apply the new science of choice architecture to nudge people toward decisions that will improve their lives by making them healthier, wealthier, and more free. Yes, there is such a thing as common sense—and thank goodness for that. At least that's this reader's reaction to Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein's Nudge, an engaging and insightful tour through the evidence that most human beings don't make decisions in the way often characterized (some would say caricatured) in elementary economics textbooks, along with a rich array of suggestions for enabling many of us to make better choices, both for ourselves and for society. ~ Benjamin M. Friedman of The New York Times
Go
What happens when the immovable object of faith meets the irresistible force of sophisticated unbelief? Too often, says Dr. Jerry Gill, the believer either retreats out of earshot, saying that faith is "better felt than told," or he tries to build a "foolproof" logical system too airtight even for God. This book suggests a third option: risking an open-minded "dialogue" with challenges to faith, examining presuppositions on both sides and acknowledging valid contributions of other views while maintaining responsible religious commitment. "As I understand it, a dialogical posture is one that takes the matters
of religious reality and truth so seriously as to require extreme
openness to and growth toward them, as well as radical sincerity and
commitment to them. Thus, all sides and aspects of an issue must be
explored with humble thoroughness, and whatever is deemed worthy of
commitment must be incorporated into one's life with integrity." ~ Quote
Go
I've realized I have a problem with writing this blog, apart from lack of time and a general aversion to the genre. What should I write about? The natural impulse is to write about what I'm thinking about, what I'm working on. But there are two reasons against this: (i) I don't want to write poor formulations of ideas that need a lot more space and time to formulate well, and (ii) I don't want to put my new ideas into the blogosphere where they can become anybody's property but mine. So I need to write about something less central to my intellectual concerns--but that just isn't very appealing. I end up writing about things that have caught my fancy recently or that I think might be helpful to people (boring!). Or else I just talk about tennis, which is fine by me but not perhaps of interest to most readers of this "intellectual" blog.
Go
In our after hours discussions, my good friend Andy and I keep circling back to the Moral Argument for God, in part because of Andy's fustration with theists who think it obvious that without God, objective morality cannot be grounded. After all, nontheists have offered a multitude of proposals for objective morality apart from God. The moral relativism that typified Modernism and atheism for much of the twentieth century is nowadays less a given, and though nontheists are divided about whether morality is objective, those who argue that it is cannot be simply ignored or dismissed. Michael Martin raises this very objection to William Lane Craig's rendition of the Moral Argument in his critique of the Craig/Flew debate. "In order to show that atheistic morality necessarily is subjective, it must be shown that all attempts to ground objective morality on a non-theistic basis fail."1 Martin is surely correct, insofar as the philosophical argument goes, but given the time constraints of a debate, Craig's placing the onus of proposing such a theory on his opponent is probably defensible. And perhaps that burden of proof applies more generally, since historically relativism and subjectivism have been advanced along polytheistic, pantheistic, or atheistic lines, whereas monotheism has consistently assumed that morality is objective, Euthyphro notwithstanding. As luck would have it, Andy is happy to shoulder that burden and propose such a moral theory. Following the lead of Shelly Kagan, he argues that Kantianism fits the bill. Andy's goal is modest: to sketch a plausible and objective ethical theory that makes no reference to God and, in so doing, to negate the presumption that theism is uniquely able to ground objective moral truths. I am far from being able to defend a fully developed metaethics of my own, but it seems to me that Kant's ethics are, in the first place, something less than a metaethical theory, and secondly, not so easily torn from the theistic fabric into which he wove them. A caveat is in order. I am at the beginning of the long journey required to fully understand the nuances and implications of Kant and the vast literature in his wake. I beg mercy for any obvious misunderstandings that follow.
Kai Nielsen (Prometheus Books: September 2005), 245 pages.
Go
The indeterminacy of the modern concept of God has made the distinction between belief and unbelief increasingly problematic. Both the complexity of the religious response and the variety of skeptical philosophies preclude simplistic definitions of what constitutes belief in God. Making the discussion even more difficult are assertions by fundamentalists who dismiss the philosophical perplexities of religious claims as unreal pseudo-problems. Atheism & Philosophy is a detailed study of these and other issues vital to our understanding of atheism, agnosticism, and religious belief. Philosopher Kai Nielsen develops a coherent and integrated approach to the discussion of what it means to be an atheist. In chapters such as "How is Atheism to be Characterized?", "Does God Exist?: Reflections on Disbelief," "Agnosticism," "Religion and Commitment," and "The Primacy of Philosophical Theology," Nielsen defends atheism in a way that answers to contemporary concerns. ~ Product Description