The Punishment Does Fit the Crime, Right?

In class we've been considering one potential reply to David Lewis' central argument against eternal hell and, consequently, the orthodox story. That reply denies that on the orthodox story, a perfectly good God inflicts wildly disproportionate punishments upon his creatures. Rather, the reply continues, according to the orthodox story any moral crime humans commit has God as a target (at least), and so is in fact an infinite crime, and so deserving of infinite punishment. In short, the punishment does fit the crime. (We presented, explained, and defended the argument in greater detail in class.)

We then considered two replies Lewis (and others) might offer to this line of reasoning. The first reply was that the "punishment fits the crime" response makes each and every moral infraction deadly serious. Given that it's so serious, it seems that God ought to do more to make that moral fact very clear to his creatures. But, Lewis contends, it's not at all that clear and obvious (at least not to all God's creatures). This makes God like the parent who litters the nursery with knives, handguns, grenades, blowtorches, bear traps, open bottles of cyanide, and old Boohbah videos.


The second reply was that we should think of love and justice as compatible, not in tension or at odds. (This is so even on the orthodox story--see Micah 6: 8 and Romans 13: 8-10). So, a truly and robustly just punishment will not be an unloving punishment. But what's loving about hell? How is hell contributing to the flourishing and well-being of those consigned there? It's terribly hard to see how eternal hell contributes to the overall well-being of hell's residents.

So, in light of these potential objections (and others you might think of), what do you think of the "punishment fits the crime" reply? Does it succeed? Are there good replies available to the two worries raised against it?

As always, think long and hard about this. Train yourself to ponder and contemplate. Cultivate good habits here. And interact graciously and charitably.

David Lewis on Hell

David Lewis

Soon we will begin discussing David Lewis' essay "Divine Evil". He argues that we ought to reject the existence of a God who consigns people to eternal conscious torment in hell.

Here are some questions for you to ponder and discuss here:

(1) Lewis thinks that eternal conscious torment in hell is a wildly disproportionate punishment for whatever one manages to do. Of course, it is unjust to inflict wildly disproportionate punishments upon people. So no perfectly good God (who is presumably perfectly just) would consign people to eternal conscious torment in hell. Is he right about all that?

(2) Some may be inclined to appeal to certain theological traditions according to which it isn't ultimately up to us whether we are saved. Salvation is not a matter of our freely choosing (apart from God's complete unilateral control) to be reconciled to God. Rather, our salvation depends entirely upon God's electing us for salvation and unilaterally bringing it about that we choose to be reconciled to God. Does holding to this view (or something like it) make a difference to Lewis' argument? Would Lewis think that this makes things better or worse for the Christian?

(3) Lewis talks a lot about hell as punishment. Must we think of hell as punishment? Perhaps we should think about things this way: God consigns some persons to hell in the sense that God allows those persons to experience the natural outcome of their free decisions made over a lifetime. (Read the Michael Murray essay again for more on this.) These persons made themselves fit for a hellish existence, cultivating a certain kind of character and way of being through their free earthly choices, and God simply allows them to experience that hellish existence. What might Lewis think about this? What do you think about this?

(4) Some may think that Lewis omitted a crucial aspect of the orthodox Christian story: original sin. Suppose we run that by Lewis. Would that ruin his arguments? What might he think about such an appeal?

(5) Lewis seems to think that no one could possibly freely choose hell (eternal ruin and misery) over reconciliation with God (eternal joy and bliss) from a fully informed perspective. What do you think it takes to be fully informed for Lewis? Is anyone ever really fully informed? Is he right that no one could possibly make such a choice?

(6) We don't think young children and even adolescents are competent to make life and death decisions. For example, we don't let 13 year old children drive cars on the highway. Why should we think that they are capable of making competent decisions regarding eternal life and death? What does it even mean to make such a choice? Is Lewis' analogy of a parent placing infants in a nursery laced with deadly objects a fitting one here?

There are plenty of other questions to consider. But this should be enough for now. Think hard about these things. Reflect deeply. Be patient and persevere. This is tough work.

Interact graciously and charitably with each other. Strive to prod one another in fruitful ways.

Christian Commitment and Genuine Religious Inquiry

Brian Leftow considers the question whether Christians can do philosophy in a way that is intellectually honest. In class we've discussed the following competing arguments as a way of setting up those issues.

The Religious Inquiry Argument
1. All Christians are persons who ought to seek the truth about Jesus.
2. All persons who ought to seek the truth about Jesus are persons who ought to be willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus.
3. Therefore, all Christians are persons who ought to be willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus.

The Christian Commitment Argument
1. All Christians are persons who ought to commit themselves totally to Jesus.
2. If all Christians are persons who ought to commit themselves totally to Jesus, then it is not the case that all Christians are persons who ought to be willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus.
3. Therefore, it is not the case that all Christians are persons who ought to be willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus.

Given that the conclusions are contradictory, it can't be that both arguments are successful. At least one must be bad. But which? And where? And, of course, what reasons do you have for rejecting that argument?

Be sure to interact with each other. And as always, be gracious and charitable.

Megan Phelps-Roper and the Value of Philosophy

Megan Phelps-Roper

Comments Due: Sunday 11:59PM.

In class this week we've considered how studying philosophy may help us acquire intellectual goods such as liberation from ideological prisons erected by our surrounding (secular, religious) cultures and freedom from a particular kind of dogmatism.

Here's what I'd like you to do. Read this brief story about Megan Phelps-Roper (granddaughter of founder Fred Phelps) and her departure from Westboro Baptist Church:

https://medium.com/reporters-notebook/d63ecca43e35

In your view, how does Megan's story connect, if at all, to what we've been talking about in class? Are you aware of any other similar stories? What do you make of all this?

Martha Nussbaum and Cornel West on the Value of Philosophy to Democracy

Comments Due: 11:59PM Tuesday, February 5. 2013.

In class we are considering whether we should bother studying philosophy. This week in particular we are in the midst of discussing the merits of the following argument:

1. Studying philosophy is useless for addressing material needs.
2. If studying philosophy is useless for addressing material needs, then there's no need to study philosophy.
3. Therefore, there's no need to study philosophy.

To help you further evaluate the argument, here's what I want you to do.



Martha Nussbaum

First, listen carefully to the following brief audio clip where Martha Nussbaum (Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law, Ethics, Human Rights, and Ancient Philosophy at the University of Chicago) is interviewed by Nigel Warburton on the value of philosophy to democracy. Here's the brief intro to the audio file:

"Why study Humanities subjects? Isn't studying Philosophy, for example, just a luxury of no obvious value to a democracy? Martha Nussbaum thinks not. In her recent book, Not For Profit, she has made a passionate defence of the Humanities. In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast she discusses these issues with Nigel Warburton."

(After clicking on the link, click on "Listen to Martha...." just above the pictures of the books.)

http://philosophybites.com/2010/12/martha-nussbaum-on-the-value-of-the-humanities.html



Yes, this happened.

Next, consider this video interview with Cornel West (Class of 1943 University Professor at Princeton University, Emeritus; Professor of Philosophy and Christian Practice at Union Theological Seminary) where, among other things, he talks about what philosophy is and the role of philosophy in democracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7EU0-mjw5M

There is plenty here in both clips to provoke discussion. What, in your view, were some of the main claims regarding the nature and role of philosophy in a democracy? What is it that philosophy in particular contributes to democracy? What, if any, are the implications of their views for your own practices and pursuits? Do Nussbaum and West have anything in particular to say to the Church? Might their views have any implications for Cedarville?

Please engage with one another. Take advantage of this opportunity to think together in community. Don't be satisfied with superficial responses to difficult matters. Don't be content with superficial thinking here. Challenge yourself and others. Press hard. And, as always, be gracious and charitable.

Some Common Objections to Studying Philosophy

Comments Due: 11:59PM Monday, January 28.

In class we're considering what philosophy is and why we should bother with it (assuming that we should). I've had you discuss the objection that philosophy is dangerous, and so we should set it aside here. Now I'd like you to consider some other objections one might raise. For example:

Study philosophy? I'd rather watch this guy.

(1) It's useless. It doesn't help us accomplish our ends/goals.
(2) It's trivial. Nothing important is discussed.
(3) It's a waste of time. There are better, more important things we could be doing with our time.
(4) It's a waste of time. We never get anywhere. We never make any progress. There are no answers to these questions anyway.

Discuss those objections. Do they have any merit? How might one respond to these objections in defense of studying philosophy? How would you respond to these objections? Would you respond with a hearty "amen!" or do you think that there's something plausible to say in response?

Perhaps you think that there are other objections to studying philosophy worth considering. In fact, you've already written on this. So, if there are other objections, what are they? Are they good objections? Why or why not?

Be sure to interact with each other. And be sure to do so with grace and humility.

Christians and Philosophy

Comment Deadline: Sunday, January 20, 11:59PM.

I can recall several occasions where I have been warned by Christians about the (alleged) dangers of studying philosophy.

On one such occasion, some years ago, I was attending the wedding of one of my high school friends. It had been a long time since we graduated from our large, non-denominational Christian high school, so the atmosphere was something like a reunion. During the reception, I struck up a conversation with a favorite teacher of mine--he had been one of my English teachers. He told me what he had been up to and how things were going at the school, and (of course) he was curious to know what I was now doing. I told him I was currently a graduate student in philosophy (convinced that he would be pleased, if not downright proud).

His smile disappeared. He became rather serious. His tone was hushed, yet clear and direct.

"Please be careful that you do not lose your faith."

I...well, uh...assured him that I wouldn't (or that I certainly didn't intend to). He didn't seem to hear me (or seem to even want me to respond). He told me about a friend of his who apparently renounced his Christianity after pursuing advanced degrees in psychology (note: not the same thing as philosophy). He didn't want the same for me (which I genuinely appreciated). He abruptly said that it was nice seeing me again, and he walked away (which I appreciated less).

Well, this conversation has been repeated frequently. Here's the pattern: I meet Christian. Christian finds out what I do. Christian looks puzzled. Christian asks why I'm doing that. Christian warns me not to lose my faith. Christian leaves.

But why? Why warn me about philosophy?

My guess is that if I had gone into accounting or law as I initially intended when coming to Cedarville as an undergraduate in the late 90s, I would have heard no such warnings from Christians. ("Oh, you're studying accounting? Please, be sure you don't lose your faith.")

Are atheists getting similar warnings from their atheist friends? ("What?! You're studying philosophy? Please, don't lose your atheism.") I doubt it. But why not? Why not warn atheists about studying philosophy?

It seems as though the assumption is that philosophy is dangerous to Christian faith (why else the warning?) but friendly toward atheistic convictions. But why think that? Indeed, why not think precisely the opposite? ("What?! You're studying philosophy? That's awesome! I'm so happy that your Christian faith will be enriched!")

Whether the assumption is plausible or not, whether we ought to maintain it or not, it just seems that many Christians do have that assumption.

Think back for a moment.

Perhaps you have witnessed the Sunday School kid who didn't know when to stop asking the increasingly exasperated teacher why?. Perhaps you were that kid.

Or maybe you're that college kid. And your reception by some professors and peers here at Cedarville is not warm and friendly.

In the Preface to his book The Life of the Mind: A Christian Perspective, Clifford Williams identifies a number of concerns that some Christians have had about engaging in the life of the mind.

Here is how Williams' expresses some of those concerns in the Preface:

(1) "Faith... is stable and enduring. It does not change with passing whims, intellectual fads, or the advent of new theories. It remains steady through personal trials and cultural deterioration. It has the innocence and directness of a child's trust in her parents. In addition, faith focuses on one object: God. It does not go off in different directions, pursuing one then another object of devotion."

But...

"Thinkers...have drives that do not fit well with these characteristics of faith. They are impulsively inquisitive, which means they go wherever the paths they are on take them. They do not like to stay in one spot; doing so would be stagnation and intellectual death.... When they come to the end of an inquiry, they hold the beliefs they have acquired with varying degrees of tentativeness. Though they are confident about some of them, they are willing to give up others should a further consideration come to light."

(2) "Christianity... is an orthodoxy. To be a Christian is to accept long-established doctrines, which means that those who are inventive and innovative may feel constricted.... An imaginative person may experience a fair amount of unease in any of these settings."

But...

"Thinkers are...imaginative. They create new possibilities and ask "What if...?" "What if we looked at the matter from a different angle?" "What if we let go of that assumption?" They are not content to accept the old just because it is old. They want to discover new perspectives."

(3) "A chief feature of nearly every group of people is pressure to conform to the standards and expectations of the group. Without conformity, the cohesiveness of the group is lost, and individuals in the group feel disconnected from each other.... Christian churches and colleges are not immune to the pressure to conform or to an authoritarian air. It sometimes seems, in fact, as if institutional Christianity prizes conformity and engenders authoritarian individuals. Since the very identity of a Christian assemblage is threatened if its members are not Christian, conforming to certain standards becomes essential. This creates a breeding ground for exercising authority and public disapproval. It is difficult to imagine thinking Christians remaining long in such a condition."

But...

"The imaginative person...is not bound by pressure to conform. Her imaginativeness continually resists this pressure. She becomes wary of others in a cohesive group and acts with reserve and caution. Others become uncomfortable in her presence, if not outrightly suspicious.... One cannot be inquisitive or imaginative without risking not just suspicion but ostracism."

(4) "Many Christians think faith goes beyond reason. In other words, faith is not the sort of thing for which evidence can be given. If evidence for it could be given, it would not be faith but knowledge. Faith has no rational foundations, these Christians say; it is a direct and personal experience of the living God."

But...

Many Christian thinkers want to explore the rational foundations of Christianity. They want to determine whether Christianity can withstand rational scrutiny. They want to see evidence for the truth of Christianity. Believing without such evidence seems akin to intellectual suicide.And such Christian thinkers just won't do it.

(5) "If loving God is central to the Christian life, then poking around in libraries or laboratories pales in comparison. And if developing Christian virtues is of paramount importance, we need to interact with others, not just bury ourselves in books.... Focusing our attention on God and the ways of God has eternal significance, whereas directing our concerns to creaturely affairs has only temporal significance. Clearly, we should concentrate on the former and not on the latter."

But...

Many Christian thinkers value their time in their books. Books are among their conversation partners. It's a source of joy and consternation, affirmation and deep challenge.

(6) "Central...to Christianity is the division between...the saved and the unsaved.... This theme gives rise to an "us versus them" mentality. "We" are good and "they" are not; "we" are in God's favor and "they" are not. Frequently, the "they" are intellectuals: professors who ridicule the faith of their students, biologists who promulgate evolution, authors who have little awareness of Christian values, judges who rule without regard for historic Christian standards, and academics who promulgate postmodernism, relativism, and unbridled freedom. Due to these considerations, numerous Christians distrust the intellectual life. It is too dangerous, and it is corrupting."

But...

"Other Christians...believe that imagination and inquisitiveness are given to us by God. Deliberately refraining from using these gifts, therefore, is like burying our talents."

So those are supposed to be some of the tensions between Chirstians who pursue the life of the mind and Christian faith.

Questions: Work through each of Williams' points. Do any of the above tensions resonate with you in particular? How do you respond to those tensions? Consider particularly (3) above. There Williams explicitly mentions Christian colleges. Does that sound like Cedarville to you? Do thinkers risk suspicion and ostracism here at Cedarville?

Be sure to interact with each other! Please be clear and direct. And, as always, be gracious and charitable.