Epistemology PH654 Bethel Seminary Winter 2009 Professor: Dr. Jim Beilby Office Hours: By appointment AC335 Phone: Office: (651) 638-6057; Home: (763) 780-2180; Email: beijam@bethel.edu Course Info: Th 7:15pm-10:15pm RC102 4 credits Prerequisite: PH606: Apologetics I. Course Description An analysis of the sources, methods, and limits of human knowing. This course covers classical views of knowledge and interacts with contemporary philosophical discussions. It raises the problem of knowledge in light of the cultural and intellectual developments broadly classified as postmodernism. It also addresses the special problems related to questions of religious knowledge (from Catalogue). II. Course Objectives 1. To be able to better understand and evaluate the sources, methods, and limits of human knowing, 2. To be able to better understand and evaluate the problem of knowledge in light of recent cultural and intellectual developments, 3. To be able to understand and deal with epistemological questions that arise in theological and religious arenas. III. Official Stuff 1. Academic Dishonesty Please familiarize yourself with the catalog requirements as specified in Academic Course Policies document found on the Syllabus page in Blackboard. You are responsible for this information, and any academic violations, such as plagiarism, will not be tolerated. 2. Appeals Procedure See Seminary catalogue, p. 93. IV. Student Responsibilities / Course Requirements 1. Attendance / Class Participation Class attendance is expected as is participation in class discussion 2. Readings Students are expected to come to class having read the readings assigned for that day. 3. Text Argument Summaries Students will write a test argument summary (TAS) for the majority of assigned readings. The purpose of a TAS is to encourage students to read carefully and critically. See the attached page for more information. 4. Descriptive Position Papers Students will write two descriptive position papers. One paper will be on a topic covered in class and the other on a topic not covered in class. See the attached page for more information. 5. Major Research Paper Students will write a major research paper on a topic of their choosing. See the attached page for more information.
V. Grading / Evaluation 1. Relative value/weight of each assignment: Text Argument Summaries 15% Descriptive Position Papers 30% (15% each) Research Paper 40% Class Participation 15% NOTE: The professor reserves the right to modify the above percentages in unusual circumstances. 2. Grade scale This grade scale will be used for all assignments and the final grade (except there are no final grades of A+ or D-). All grades will be rounded to the nearest whole number. A+ 100-98 B + 90-88 C+ 80-78 D + 70-68 F 60-0 A 98-93 B 88-83 C 78-73 D 68-63 A- 93-90 B- 83-80 C- 73-70 D - 63-60 NOTE: A s are reserved for excellent work; a grade of B indicates good work; and a C indicates fair/average work. No grades of A or B will be given for merely good effort. 3. Policy Concerning Late Assignments Late assignments may not be accepted. Late assignments that are accepted may be penalized as much as one entire letter grade per day. VI. Texts rd Morton, Adam. A Guide Through the Theory of Knowledge, 3 edition. Wiley-Blackwell, 2003. ISBN: 978-1-4051-0012-5 Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford, 2000. ISBN: 0-19-513913-2 VII. Supplemental texts nd Sosa, Ernest & Kim, Jaegwon, et al. Epistemology: An Anthology, 2 edition (Blackwell, 2008) Dancey, Jonathan & Sosa, Ernest. A Companion to Epistemology (Blackwell, 1992) Beilby, James. Epistemology as Theology: An Evaluation of Alvin Plantinga s Religious Epistemology (Ashgate, 2006) VIII. Articles nd (1) Moore, G. E. Four Forms of Skepticism, Chapter 3 in Epistemology: An Anthology, 2 edition, eds. Ernest Sosa & Jaegwon Kim, et al. (Blackwell, 2008) 29-30. nd (2) Moore, G. E. Certainty, Chapter 4 in Epistemology: An Anthology, 2 edition, eds. Ernest Sosa & Jaegwon Kim, et al. (Blackwell, 2008) 31-34. (3) Beilby, James. Doing Theology in a Postmodern World: On Metanarratives, Foundationalism, and Realism, revised version of paper published as The Implications of Postmodernism for Theology: On Meta-narratives, Foundationalism, and Realism, The Princeton Theological Review 12/1 (Spring 2006) 11-16.
VII. Class and Reading Schedule ** NOTE: This is a tentative schedule ** Assignment Date Class Topic REQUIRED TAS READING REQUIRED? 1/8 Introduction / History of Epistemology 1/15 Belief Truth / Realism vs. Nonrealism Morton 1 (1) Morton 1 1/22 Perception Skepticism, Certainty, Proof Morton 2; Art 1, 2 (1) Morton 2 1/29 Apriori knowledge & induction Morton 3, 4 (2) Morton 3 Morton 4 Desc Pap 1 2/5 Fallibilism Foundationalism Morton 5; Art 3 (2) Morton 5 Art 3 2/12 Knowledge / Externalism Morton 6, 7 (2) Morton 6 Morton 7 Desc Pap 2 2/19 Religious concepts and beliefs WCB 1, 2 (1) WCB 1, 2 2/26 The objection to religious knowledge WCB 3-5 (1) WCB 3-5 3/5 Warrant and Christian belief WCB 6-8 (1) WCB 6-8 Final paper 3/12 Defeaters and objections WCB 10, 11, 14 (1) WCB 10, 11, 14
Warning: You will hate this assignment. Text Argument Summaries The purpose of this assignment is to get you to read carefully and truly understand the argument of the assigned text. Requirements: 1. They must be typed. Hand-written Text Argument Summaries will not be accepted. No exceptions. 2. They must be handed in the day the text is discussed in class. 3. You must be present in class to turn in a Text Argument Summary. Sample... Text Argument Summary Name: Jim Beilby THE499: Theology Seminar P.O.: 42 Text: Thomas McCall, Religious Epistemology, chapter 5 Date: January 12, 2009 Key terms / concepts: (definitions not required; just list them).... 1 point Justification, warrant, deontology, defeaters, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, sensus divinitatis, noetic affects of sin, Jonathan Edwards Three fundamental points made by the author (in your own words) with page references............... 4 points 1. De jure ( Is it reasonable to believe it? ) questions are not independent of de facto ( Is it true? ) questions, p. 159. 2. Human beings have been created with a capacity to know God, a capacity that John Calvin called the sensus divinitas, p. 175. 3. There is no good reason to think that Christians are not fulfilling their epistemic duties or obligations when they accept that God exists, loves them, etc., even if they hold their belief in a basic way, i.e., not on the basis of propositional evidence or arguments, p. 184. Thesis The author s main point & supporting argumentation 3 sentence maximum.................. 4 points The requirement that religious beliefs must be supported by propositional evidence or arguments (usually called Theistic arguments ) is based on a faulty epistemological requirement called evidentialism. Instead it is entirely appropriate for Christians to treat their beliefs about God as they treat basic perceptual beliefs (e.g., I see a tree ). In fact, Christian beliefs can be considered knowledge if they are formed by properly functioning cognitive faculties, in an appropriate environment, if they are subject to no defeaters, and if the beliefs is, in fact, true. Your questions... 1 point 1. How is warrant different from knowledge? 2. What sorts of things are defeaters? Can defeaters be defeated themselves? 3. Does this account of religious epistemology presuppose a Calvinist soteriology? 10 points total
Descriptive Position Papers Length: 8-10 pages (12 point font, double-spaced, 1" margins) Roughly 2,500-3,000 words Topics: One on a topic we have covered in class and one on a topic we have not covered in class. If you have questions about the appropriateness of a topic, please ask! Here is a non-exhaustive list of possible topics: Covered in class Not covered in class Truth Externalism/Internalism Moral knowledge Realism/nonrealism Modernism/Postmodernism Knowledge of other minds Apriori knowledge Foundationalism/nonfoundationalism Testimony Induction Evidentialism/nonevidentialism Naturalized epistemology Knowledge Justification / rationality... Others? Expectations:This is a descriptive position paper. In other words, it is a paper in which you need to describe a particular issue and your position on it. Suppose you do a paper on foundationalism/nonfoundationalism. You will need to describe what this debate is about, what are the primary views, and which view you prefer and why. While this paper will require research, there is no minimum number of sources required. Grading: Papers will be graded on the clarity and accuracy of your description of the issue and of your description and defense of your position. This includes both grammatical and conceptual clarity. Please note that grades above 96 are reserved for superior work.
Final Research Paper Length: 25-30 pages (12 point font, double-spaced, 1" margins) Roughly 7,500-9,000 words Topics: Your choice within the following parameters: 1. The topic must be of scholarly interest don t make a claim that no one would care to deny (e.g., Classical Foundationalism was a product of modernistic epistemological assumptions or Alston s epistemology is incompatible with Wittgenstein s epistemology ) 2. The topic should be manageable in the allotted page count. Don t attempt a topic that is either too narrow or too broad. That being said, 90% of papers I have read could have been more focused and less broad. 3. Your paper cannot be a recycled version of a previous academic paper. Expectations:This paper must be an argumentative paper. Make a claim and support it with adequate argumentation. This claim could either be positive ( Alston s foundationalism avoids infinite regress objections ) or negative ( Moser s claim that internalism avoids skepticism better than externalism is not true ). Grading: Papers will be graded on the clarity and depth of your argument and the depth of your research. While there is no minimum amount of sources, it is expected that you will do substantial research for this paper. The clarity requirement includes both grammatical and conceptual clarity. Please note that grades above 96 are reserved for superior work.