Lectures start promptly at 7:30PM and are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month September through May
1-13-2015: Do we Have
Prudential Reason to Believe in God?
Justin
Fisher, Ph.D., SMU
Blaise
Pascal thought we didn't have enough evidence to determine whether or
not God exists, but in his famous "Wager", he argued that we still have
prudential reason to believe in God because this has higher expected
utility than does disbelief. We'll carefully consider Pascal's
Wager and some of the problems with it. We'll also consider some
other more "down to earth" prudential arguments that might raise more
compelling practical reasons for various people to (try to) believe or
disbelieve in God. My conclusion will be that some people do have
quite compelling prudential reason to try to believe in God, while
other people have quite compelling prudential reason to try to be
atheists.
1-27-2015: Folk Metaphysics as Cultural Confound and Constraint in Mental Health Discourse
John Sadler, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School
I
describe the concept of ‘folk metaphysics’ and its value in
understanding key areas of confusion and conflict in mental health and
the criminal justice system. Folk metaphysics are
taken-for-granted beliefs about the nature of reality, what it means to
be human, and the sources of truth and morality. Western culture
today is dominated by variations on two kinds of folk metaphysics, both
emerging from diverging strands of the Enlightenment; one based on
medieval Catholic church teachings, and imbricated today in Western
common and criminal law, and the other, based on elite Enlightenment
formulations of science, complex causality, and secularism.
2-10-2015:
Super Models; Our Quest to Explain the Nature of Reality and the Reality of Nature
Skip Kilmer, M.S., Greenhill School, Retired
Since our detection of patterns in
what we see and hear we have looked for coherent explanations for those
patterns. At the same time we have tried to influence or even control
forces in the world. This presentation will comprise a shamefully
abridged, somewhat chronological exposition of some prominent
milestones toward these theories.
2-24-2015: The Power of Brevity: The Role of Poetry in a World of Too Many Words
Nathan Brown, Ph. D., University of Oklahoma: Poet Laureate of Oklahoma
The Power of Brevity: The Role of Poetry in a world of Too Many Words. "
In a world bogged down in masses and messes of text-- print,personal
devices, the Web, and television, all filled with an endless array of
useless, if not worthless information-- determining what is and isn't
worth our time and brain space, is becoming an impossible task. To make
matters worse, the amount of it grows exponentially every day. In
direct contrast, the poet-- though he or she deals in words as well --
is focused on one central goal: finding and fitting only the best
possible words into the smallest of spaces. Some of us fail. But Poetry
as an art form is-- or at least should be-- an exercise in cutting the
fluff and getting to the core of communication and storytelling. This
specific goal, or work ethic, is worth our consideration as we face the
growing problem of information overload."
3-10-2015: What Makes Jewish Thought Jewish?
David Patterson, Ph.D., UTD
The phrase Jewish thought is
often used, but the question of exactly what makes Jewish thought
Jewish is seldom raised. Jewish philosopher Emil Fackenheim has
said, “Nothing so powerfully makes a philosopher Jewish as ‘Torah,’”
but what exactly does that mean? As the presentation explains,
his statement concerns not the content of belief but the categories
that shape our thinking. What is to be considered here are the
categories of Hebraic thinking over against the categories of
Hellenistic thought that make up the foundations of the Western
speculative tradition. Among the opposing categories are
causation vs. creation, reason vs. revelation, reflection vs.
responsibility, and autonomy vs. heteronomy. The presentation
elucidates the contrast by examining the opening line of Torah:
Bereshit bara Elokim et ha-shamayim v’et ha-aretz (“In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth.”) It will be shown that,
inasmuch as it is grounded in Torah, Jewish thought thinks in terms of
human relation and higher relation. In order to make the
argument, the discussion draws on Franz Rosenzweig’s and concept of
“speaking thinking,” as well as Emmanuel Levinas and his accent on the
connection between subjectivity and responsibility. Briefly
stated, Jewish thought is a way of thinking that answers, “Here I am”
to a summons that already devolves upon us.
3-24-2015: Religion and Political Consciousness in a Post-Secular Age.
Robert Hunt, SMU
It has been recognized over the last
decade that the nations bordering the North Atlantic are entering into
a post-secular age. In this age the role of religion in public life
that had been negotiated during the rise of modernity and the birth of
secularism is being re-negotiated. What Charles Taylor calls the “cross
pressures” of secularity as a situation of the consciousness in
modernity are leading to both a re-assertion of religion in public
life, and increasingly vehement denials of even the roles it has played
thus far. I will offer an overview of Taylor’s theory of secularization
and Elaine Graham’s recent work on how the re-negotiated place of
religion in secular society is taking place.
4-14-2015: Meditation, Neuroscience, and Ethics
Ken Wiliford, Ph.D., UTA
What
is meditation? What are the varieties of meditation? What
does meditation do to your brain, according to contemporary
neuroscience? What is the relationship between meditation and
religious experience? What is the relationship between meditation
and philosophy? Can mediation help to make a person more virtuous
or ethical? Why meditate? In this talk, these questions
will be considered from philosophical, neuroscientific, and
socio-historical points of view.
4-28-2015: Miracles, Philosophy and Contemporary Science
Dr. Robert Sloan Lee
The 20th
century (and beyond) has been especially hostile to the notion of the
miraculous (at least in some circles). Many seem to think that
the force of the case against the miraculous is somehow tied to the
enterprise of science. This paper will examine the idea of how,
exactly, miracles are supposed to be contrary to the principles of
scientific investigation and explore arguments advancing that
outlook. In particular, we will focus on the arguments of
Guy Robinson (namely, that appealing to the miraculous lies outside of
the scope of science) and G. E. Moore (namely, that explanations
appealing to the miraculous, unlike scientific explanations, are
epistemologically unstable or capricious).
5-12-2015: Montesquieu: The Conservative
Liberalism of the Political Scientist
Frank Rohmer, Austin College
While Montesquieu
was the political theorist most quoted by Federalists and
Anti-Federalists in the debate over the ratification of the U. S.
Constitution, his political thought has received less attention,
except at the superficial level, from all but a few bold explorers
who have been willing to brave the daunting task of discovering the
subtle teachings concealed in the labyrinthine chapters of The
Spirit of the Laws (1748). Those passages, as all have
understood, reveal Montesquieu as a defender of liberty against
oppressive forms of government. What those passages make less clear
is that Montesquieu viewed human freedom differently from his
philosophic predecessors Hobbes and Locke because Montesquieu viewed
human nature differently and more complexly. Where Hobbes and Locke
viewed human nature in the abstract and sought the legitimacy of
government in the human consent to a government that secured basic
natural rights, Montesquieu understood human nature not in the
abstract but as refracted by the variety of human civilizations.
This comparative approach to human nature and political life was, for
Montesquieu, as it would also be for Edmund Burke and William
Blackstone who read him carefully, more scientific because grounded
in historical experience and more prudent because sensitive to the
inclinations of real human beings. To seek political reform in a
recurrence to first principles or by the importation of foreign
improvements was, for Montesquieu, to risk the precarious foundations
of civil order for the chimaera of truth.