A Scholar’s Prayer

Lord and Savior, true and kind, be the master of my mind;Bless and guide and strengthen still all my powersof thought and will. While I ply the scholar’s task,Jesus be near; I ask; Help the memory,clear the brain, knowledge still to seek and gain. Bishop of Durham H.G.C. Moule

Philosophy is hard

Doing philosophy is pretty hard work. I may not have worked up a sweat today, but I’m exhausted! I’ve spent the last 7 hours going through journals (online and in-hand), books, and companions trying to come up with a reading list for my general exam. I’ve got to get this thing completed so I can get the approval from my dissertation committee and then get busy studying. It’s weird to think that I’ll be studying for 1 exam for the next 10 months, but I’m really excited about it.My general exam is going to be in the philosophy of religion with an emphasis on the problem of evil. I’m excited about this test because it’s in an area that I really love learning more about. I finally have a reason (or excuse depending on how you look at it) to read a ton of material that I’ve wanted to read for a long time. There are so many arguments for/against God and our experience with him that I’ve wanted to read but had to spend my time in other areas of philosophy.I now understand why people have told me to focus in an area that I love. If I didn’t enjoy doing philosophy of religion so much, there is no way I could put this much energy into it. Once I have an approved reading list, I’ll post it for anyone’s perusal.

The Problem of Evil

Every Christian should realize that the problem(s) of evil are difficult to deal with and can stand as legitimate obstacles to someone’s belief in the existence of God. For those that are not familiar with this problem, I will give you a very quick version:

1. If God exists, he is omnipotent and omnibenevolent
2. Evil exists.

So, it seems that:

1. God wanted to prevent evil, but couldn’t and so is not omnipotent, or
2. God could have prevented evil but didn’t want to and so is not omnibenevolent.

It seems that there is an inconsistency within the first two premises, so they both cannot be true at the same time. The non-theist says we have good reasons for believing evil exists, so we should reject (1). The theist, however, doesn’t want to reject either so must figure out a way to make (1) and (2) consistent. This version of the problem of evil is one of many, but gets the general idea across.What I hope is that Christians understand the force of this problem and do not just chalk it up to the lack of faith in God in the non-believer. That probably plays a role, but even many Christians are troubled by this as well. I feel that we have good responses to this type of problem in the ‘free will’ defense, but it isn’t likely to answer the non-theists questions on the first pass. I recently had the opportunity to lecture for two introduction to philosophy classes at the University of Oklahoma on the problem of evil and had some really good discussions with many of the students. If you would like more information on this type of objection, let me know and I’d love to direct you to some great resources.Grace and peace,

Sweet relief, for now

Well, I finished my PhD qualifying exams this morning. The first one on the history of modern philosophy was yesterday and went well. I answered the three questions that I was really hoping were going to be on the exam:

1. What is the charge of circularity against Descartes in the Meditations and how could one defend Descartes against this charge?
2. Explain the view of creation as held by Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza. Be sure to include Descartes’ discussion of the creation of eternal truths, Leibniz’s divine calculus, and Spionza’s necessitarianism.
3. What is Locke’s view on the primary/secondary quality distinction? How does he argue for this distinction? How does Berkeley critique Locke’s view? Does Berkeley misunderstand Locke?

This morning I took the exam on metaphysics and epistemology and, again, the questions I wanted to be on the test most were there:

1. What is the ontological argument for the existence of God and what are the objections to it? How does it stand up to those objections?
2. What is (are) the main problem(s) of free will? What is a compatibilist response to the problem(s)? How does compatibilism stand up to objections raised against it?
3. What is Gettier’s objection to the traditional account of knowledge? What are the possible responses to that problem? How do the responses fair to objections?

I feel really good knowing that I answered everything that I wanted to and don’t think I forgot anything that was crucial to the arguments. My only concern is that in preparing my notes and outlines, I may have overlooked or forgotten something important and because of that, it didn’t end up on the exam. I don’t think that is a real plausible scenario, but it is plausible at least.So, I leave with another request. Please continue to pray for favor among the 5 professors that will be grading the exam. I need to get a ‘high pass’ to continue in the program. I’ll keep you updated.Grace and peace,