Philosophy News - Podcast

Evolution and Religious Belief

mail@philosophynews.com (Paul Pardi) — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:02:00 -0700

Does evolutionary theory undermine the truth of religious belief? There have been many books published in recent years whose authors have attempted to develop an evolutionary explanation of religious belief. Pascal Boyer in Religion Explained claims, “The explanation for religious beliefs and behaviors is to be found in the way all human minds work.” Boyer’s effort at explaining religious belief is an evolutionary one. Similarly, Daniel Dennett in Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon writes, “Religion is natural as opposed to supernatural, … it is a human phenomenon composed of events, organisms, objects, structures, patterns, and the like that all obey the laws of physics or biology, and hence do not involve miracles.” Dennett’s view, too is that religion is a product of evolution.

Many go further claiming that an evolutionary explanation of religious belief at the very least undermines the truth of the claims of religion (claims such as God exists) and may even undermine the value of religious belief. If evolution explains religious belief, so the argument goes, it is at best an unnecessary by product of evolutionary processes.

Even if there are viable evolutionary explanations of religious belief, does this mean that the central claims of religion are false and does it mean that religious belief should be discarded? Dr. Michael Murray and Dr. Jeffrey Schloss addressed these and other questions in the second annual Bellingham Lectures in Philosophy and Religion held in February 2012 on the campus of Western Washington University in Bellingham. In this podcast, we interview Drs. Schloss and Murray about their talk and about their perspectives on the impact of evolutionary theory on how we ought to think about religious belief and practice. Philosophy News interviewed Dr. Alvin Plantinga in 2011 for this series.

Dr. Schloss answers first.

Listen: murray_schloss_final.mp3

Michael Murray is a Senior Visiting Scholar at Franklin and Marshall College and Jeffrey Schloss is a T.B. Walker Professor of Biology and Director of the Center for Philosophy, Faith, and the Life Sciences at Westmont College.

Excerpt:

“In the [19]70s up through the mid-90s, a lot of attention was focused on a different but not unrelated issue which has to do with the altruistic or moral behavior in humans and other organisms. So that at least seems to be a Darwinian puzzle because if what evolution is all about is to advance your own fitness and well being, then there are sorts of behaviors that look like organisms are trying to assist others at their own expense and that seems counter-intuitive or puzzling given the the theory. So there’s a lot of attention devoted to explaining that. I think that very naturally leads one to look at other kinds of pervasive forms of belief and behavior which also seem to be counter-intuitive on the Darwinian picture and religious belief looks like an example of that. Not because it’s false if in fact you think it is (which many scientists do) but rather because there are significant costs involved with religious belief and behavior…. This has led to a different kind of Darwinian puzzle and I think researchers began to turn their attention to that. That spawned new accounts, many of which have a lot of empirical support, and I think the initial reaction a lot of people have to those accounts is that there’s something troubling for religious belief here. ”

_________________________

Photography by Pete Harris of Pete Harris Photography

Special thanks to Dan and Frances Howard-Snyder and the philosophy faculty of Western Washington University for hosting this interview.

Drs. Murray and Schloss visited Western as a part of the Bellingham Lectures in Philosophy and Religion series which is supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation

On Knowing God Exists

mail@philosophynews.com (Paul Pardi) — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:42:39 -0700

It’s possible for a religious believer to be rational and completely justified in believing in God’s existence without basing her belief on evidence. That’s the general claim of philosopher Alvin Plantinga. In this podcast and accompanying video, Paul Pardi lays out what he sees as Plantinga’s core argument and briefly examines some objections. This presentation was given to the Capitol Hill Theology Pub to a largely lay audience interested in philosophy and theology. The presentation was designed as a primer to Plantinga’s ideas on religious belief and warrant. In the first 45 minutes Paul gives an overview of some general problems in epistemology and then lays out Plantinga’s argument and some objections to it. He then takes 30 minutes of questions and answers.

Listen: pl_speech.mp3

Download: Presentation: Knowing God Exists (34 Mb)

Subscribe to Philosophy News podcasts

Watch:

Knowing God Exists: The Religious Epistemology of Alvin Plantinga from Philosophy News.

Other Resources

An interview with Alvin Plantinga on his new book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
Capitol Hill Theology Pub website

Knowledge, Virtue, and the Intellect

mail@philosophynews.com (Paul Pardi) — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:02:02 -0700

Are humans the cause of global warming? How should I raise my children? Who should I vote for? Did a higher power create the universe? Each of us seems to be responsible to possess knowledge about myriad subjects that affect not only our lives but the lives of those around us (and perhaps those on the other side of the globe). As the world gets smaller and more complex, our “knowledge burden” seems to increase with each passing day. Pundits, politicians, and talking heads try to simplify these complex questions but many philosophers know better. Knowing how to know is a hard business.

Philosophers have been working on the knowledge problem since before Plato and while progress has been made, it has come slowly and has been an arduous journey. Professor Jason Baehr has just released a new book with Oxford University Press that adds a fresh perspective to this challenge. Instead of focusing on the standard topics of justification, truth, and belief, Jason focuses on the person holding belief and argues that understanding the role virtue plays—intellectual virtue—may contribute to unlocking the mystery of knowledge. Possessing intellectual virtues like open mindedness or curiosity may be just important as having well functioning belief-forming mechanisms like eyesight and reasoning capacities.

In this podcast, Jason and I discuss the contents of his new book The Inquiring Mind in which he lays out a framework for the nascent field of virtue epistemology. We talk about the work of Linda Zagzebski who has done pioneering work in this field, how Jason’s book contributes to the growing discipline, practical aspects of the work, and where epistemology might be going in the future.

Listen: baehr_podcast.mp3

Subscribe to Philosophy News podcasts

Excerpt:

“On my view, whether an ID theorist or the person who doubts that humans are the cause of global warming and who, on the basis of this conviction, chooses not to investigate the matter further ... counts as intellectually vicious depends on whether these people have good reason to accept the beliefs that are guiding their intellectual conduct. So on my view, intellectual virtues are traits that involve, among other things, dispositions to inquire and think in ways that one has reason to believe will be useful for reaching or securing the truth.”

Other Resources:

Get the book!

The Inquiring Mind: On Intellectual Virtues and Virtue Epistemology
Oxford University Press has made the first chapter of the book available as a sample. You can download that here.
The OUP website for the book.

Select papers by Dr. Baehr:

"The Structure of Open-Mindedness"

"Character, Reliability, and Virtue Epistemology"

"The Cognitive Demands of Intellectual Virtue"

"Epistemic Malevolence"

"Two Kinds of Wisdom"

Plantinga and the Debate Between Science and Religion

mail@philosophynews.com (Paul Pardi) — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:47:27 -0700

This podcast is a recording that was made in August of 2007 at Rainier Beach Presbyterian Church in Seattle Washington. The speaker is Dr. Alvin Plantinga and the title of the talk is “Religion and Science: Why does the Debate Continue?” Dr. Plantinga taught at Calvin College in Grand Rapids Michigan and spent most of his long career at Notre Dame University. His most important work has been the Warrant series culminating with Warranted Christian Belief in which he argues that a person can be fully justified in believing in God’s existence even if that belief is not grounded on evidence as it’s typically understood. This 2007 lecture is of particular interest because this month Dr. Plantinga has released a new book taking on the claim that religion and science are incompatible. His book, Where the Conflict Really Lies, is sure to generate a lot of discussion and be the subject of much debate. Philosophy News will be publishing an interview with Dr. Plantinga on his new book and this lecture is an early version of some of the ideas he included in the book. We hope you enjoy it.

Listen: Plantinga_2007_podcast.mp3

Subscribe to Philosophy News podcasts

Excerpt:

“The first question is, “Is there really a debate?” and I think the answer to that question is, “Yes, there is really a debate.” But if you Christians feel sort of beleaguered by science, if you think science is somehow going contrary to Christian belief, because these certain parts of it do, several scientists, quite a few scientists think that religion is a real danger to science. Still others think that as science advances, religion retreats. So there is this kind of opposition—at least a perceived opposition—between science and religion and my question is, “Why is that? Why does this debate continue?” I think there are several reasons . . . six of them anyway.”

Other Resources:

In the lecture, Plantinga refers to a handout. You can download the handout here.

Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism

Interview with Peter Boghossian

mail@philosophynews.com (Paul Pardi) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:38:00 -0700

In a recent article for Inside Higher Ed professor Boghossian of Portland State University (Oregon) sketches his position that professors should have a primary goal of changing students beliefs if those beliefs are false and seek to replace those beliefs with true ones. He asks, “Should professors attempt to change students’ beliefs by consistently challenging false beliefs with facts?” On the surface, an affirmative answer to this question seems obvious. What professor would want his students to walk out of his or her class with clearly false information when he or she has the power to set the record straight. “I believe our role as educators should be to teach students not just factual data, but the importance of critically examining beliefs by exposing them to facts, and then revising cherished notions when confronted with reliable but discomforting evidence.” He subsequently gave a talk on the PSU campus arguing that faith is a cognitive sickness and should be given no countenance in the classroom.

In this podcast, we talk to professor Boghossian about the thesis of his article, the substance of his lecture and the reaction to it, and his work with prisoners and how critical thinking skills can be used in that difficult environment.

Listen: boghossian_podcast.mp3

Download: Interview with Peter Boghossian (26 Mb)

Subscribe to Philosophy News podcasts

Excerpt:

“I think one of the things we’ve seen happen, and Dennett talks about this in Breaking the Spell, and then he talks about this again in his little article, "Preachers who are not believers,” that people of faith and people who use faith as a process to know the world think that the fact that they use this process to know the world, this is actually a moral issue for them. They think that this way of thinking—I’m hesitant to use the word ‘reasoning’—this way of thinking about the world makes them better people. It imbues upon them a certain characteristic, a quality. A moral quality. Using this way of thinking is a value. And that somehow that value makes them a good person or a better person or more just or a more humble or noble person…. So many people fall for this idea that if somebody says that they are a person of faith, then somehow that means they must be a good person, or a decent person, or a kind person. When in fact that’s not true. It’s just a process of reasoning that will lead one away from the truth.”

Other Resources:

“Should We Challenge Student Beliefs?”
Inside Higher Ed

Philosophy News write-up on Peter’s article

Select papers by Peter Boghossian:

"Socratic Pedagogy: Perplexity, Humiliation, Shame and a Broken Egg"
Educational Philosophy and Theory

“Critical Thinking and Constructivism: Mambo Dog Fish to the Banana Patch”
Journal of Philosophy of Education

“Socratic Pedagogy, Critical Thinking, and Offender Programming”
Offender Programs Report, Jan/Feb, Volume 13, Number 5

“Behaviorism, Constructivism, and Socratic Pedagogy”
Educational Philosophy and Theory, December, Volume 38, Issue 6

“Socratic Pedagogy, Critical Thinking, and Inmate Education”
Journal of Correctional Education, Volume 57, Number 1, March 18

“How the Socratic Method Works”
Informal Logic: Teaching Supplement, Volume 23, Number 2

“Socratic Pedagogy, Race, and Power: From People to Propositions”
Education Policy Analysis Archives, January, Volume 10, Number 3

“The Socratic Method (Or, Having a Right to Get Stoned)”
Teaching Philosophy, December, Volume 25, Number 4

“How to Make an Argument”
The Clearing House: Educational Research Controversy and Practices, November/December, Volume 76, Number 2