Friday, December 01, 2006
Final Project
Logic and Inquiry Final Project
Choose one of the following and analyze it. Analysis has two steps: 1. reconstruct the argument, 2. evaluate the argument. Remember to use the key terms from class as summarized on the slides (available on the main course page). Be sure to provide the following:
*Transcription Guide (abbreviating letters and what they mean—keep it grammatical!)
*Formal argument
*Evaluation
--Formal: Validity
--Material: Truth and Cogency (How plausible is it that the premises are true?)
Nota Bene: predicate terms might be really long and complicated! However, by symbolizing them, the argument needn’t be any more complicated. E.g. “th barks at strangers and pees on the rug in the basement when left home alone and occasionally needs a flea dip” can simply be represented by “D” for “dog”. “tw leads to soap scum on the tub” can be represented by “tw LSST.” Thus, long, complicated predicates needn’t confuse you.
From the very first part of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.
I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to a purpose that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 66:4). But the purpose must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the purpose. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.
From the Euthyphro
A.
One of the editors claimed that Socrates' main question to Euthyphro--Is the Holy holy because because God approves it, or does God approve it because it's holy?--was a "weapon" against those who believe that what is right is determined solely by God's will. How might such an argument go? (Might morality depend on God without depending on His will alone?)
B.
In Why I'm not a Christian Bertrand Russell claimed that the Euthyphro Problem can be used as an argument against the existence of God. How might that argument Go?
Choose one of the following and analyze it. Analysis has two steps: 1. reconstruct the argument, 2. evaluate the argument. Remember to use the key terms from class as summarized on the slides (available on the main course page). Be sure to provide the following:
*Transcription Guide (abbreviating letters and what they mean—keep it grammatical!)
*Formal argument
*Evaluation
--Formal: Validity
--Material: Truth and Cogency (How plausible is it that the premises are true?)
Nota Bene: predicate terms might be really long and complicated! However, by symbolizing them, the argument needn’t be any more complicated. E.g. “th barks at strangers and pees on the rug in the basement when left home alone and occasionally needs a flea dip” can simply be represented by “D” for “dog”. “tw leads to soap scum on the tub” can be represented by “tw LSST.” Thus, long, complicated predicates needn’t confuse you.
From the very first part of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.
I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to a purpose that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 66:4). But the purpose must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the purpose. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.
From the Euthyphro
A.
One of the editors claimed that Socrates' main question to Euthyphro--Is the Holy holy because because God approves it, or does God approve it because it's holy?--was a "weapon" against those who believe that what is right is determined solely by God's will. How might such an argument go? (Might morality depend on God without depending on His will alone?)
B.
In Why I'm not a Christian Bertrand Russell claimed that the Euthyphro Problem can be used as an argument against the existence of God. How might that argument Go?
