While rooted in careful study of Mead’s original writings and transcribed lectures and the historical context in which that work was carried out, the papers in this volume have brought Mead’s work to bear on contemporary issues in metaphysics, epistemology, cognitive science, and social and political philosophy.

In this, the first book to address the ongoing debate, Plantinga presents his influential thesis and responds to critiques by distinguished philosophers from a ...

Downside risk aversion (downside RA) and decreasing absolute risk aversion (DARA) are different concepts that describe preferences for which the harm from bearing risk is lessened by an increase in wealth. This note presents some intuitive explanations of the difference between the two concepts using simple lotteries and graphical analysis. All risk-averse utility functions exhibit downside risk aversion, except those that exhibit sufficiently strong increasing absolute risk aversion. In a sense, downside RA is to be expected: adding downside risk to (...) a baseline lottery is analogous to increasing risk while adding upside risk is analogous to decreasing risk. The difference between the two concepts can be attributed to the use of different measures of the harm from risk bearing: downside RA measures harm using the utility premium and DARA measures harm using the risk premium. The two premia can change at different rates and even in different directions as wealth increases. (shrink)

★ Publishers Weekly starred review One of the Top 100 Books and One of the 5 Best Books in Religion for 2019, Publishers Weekly Christianity Today 2020 Book Award Winner (Spiritual Formation) Outreach 2020 Resource of the Year (Spiritual Growth) Foreword INDIES 2019 Honorable Mention for Religion This is not a book about Saint Augustine. In a way, it's a book Augustine has written about each of us. Popular speaker and award-winning author James K. A. Smith has spent time (...) on the road with Augustine, and he invites us to take this journey too, for this ancient African thinker knows far more about us than we might expect. Following Smith's successful You Are What You Love, this book shows how Augustine can be a pilgrim guide to a spirituality that meets the complicated world we live in. Augustine, says Smith, is the patron saint of restless hearts--a guide who has been there, asked our questions, and knows our frustrations and failed pursuits. Augustine spent a lifetime searching for his heart's true home and he can help us find our way. "What makes Augustine a guide worth considering," says Smith, "is that he knows where home is, where rest can be found, what peace feels like, even if it is sometimes ephemeral and elusive along the way." Addressing believers and skeptics alike, this book shows how Augustine's timeless wisdom speaks to the worries and struggles of contemporary life, covering topics such as ambition, sex, friendship, freedom, parenthood, and death. As Smith vividly and colorfully brings Augustine to life for 21st-century readers, he also offers a fresh articulation of Christianity that speaks to our deepest hungers, fears, and hopes. (shrink)

What is epistemology? -- What is knowledge? -- Where does knowledge come from? -- What is truth, and how do we find it? -- What are inferences, and how do they work? -- What do we perceive? -- Do we need justification? -- What is virtue epistemology? -- Do we have revelation? -- How certain can we be?

The Heythrop Journal, Volume 63, Issue 2, Page 232-244, March 2022.

2013 Word Guild Award (Academic) How does worship work? How exactly does liturgical formation shape us? What are the dynamics of such transformation? In the second of James K. A. Smith's three-volume theology of culture, the author expands and deepens the analysis of cultural liturgies and Christian worship he developed in his well-received Desiring the Kingdom. He helps us understand and appreciate the bodily basis of habit formation and how liturgical formation--both "secular" and Christian--affects our fundamental orientation to the (...) world. Worship "works" by leveraging our bodies to transform our imagination, and it does this through stories we understand on a register that is closer to body than mind. This has critical implications for how we think about Christian formation. Professors and students will welcome this work as will pastors, worship leaders, and Christian educators. The book includes analyses of popular films, novels, and other cultural phenomena, such as The King's Speech, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest, and Facebook. (shrink)

Following his successful Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? leading Christian philosopher James K. A. Smith introduces the philosophical sources behind postliberal theology. Offering a provocative analysis of relativism, Smith provides an introduction to the key voices of pragmatism: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Richard Rorty, and Robert Brandom. Many Christians view relativism as the antithesis of absolute truth and take it to be the antithesis of the gospel. Smith argues that this reaction is a symptom of a deeper theological problem: an inability to (...) honor the contingency and dependence of our creaturehood. Appreciating our created finitude as the condition under which we know (and were made to know) should compel us to appreciate the contingency of our knowledge without sliding into arbitrariness. Saying "It depends" is not the equivalent of saying "It's not true" or "I don't know." It is simply to recognize the conditions of our knowledge as finite, created, social beings. Pragmatism, says Smith, helps us recover a fundamental Christian appreciation of the contingency of creaturehood. This addition to an acclaimed series engages key thinkers in modern philosophy with a view to ministry and addresses the challenge of relativism in a creative, original way. (shrink)

The religiously inclined have always rejected materialism. The thesis of this study is that there may have been good reasons for them to do so until comparatively recent times but that the same reasons no longer exist. Our knowledge of matter has not only increased, it has also been altered so completely that there is no more justification for disapproving of materialism on religious grounds.

The problem is that of how to relate reality to the categories of dyadic ontology. We shall understand by "reality" the immediate object of that which is true. We shall understand by "dyadic ontology" one which assumes a pair of ontological categories as the real. The categories chosen will be those of a class of constants characterized by persistence and a class of variables characterized by change. As one philosophical tradition succeeds another in history, the names will be altered. Again, (...) sometimes the class will be specified and sometimes its elements. The relation between reality and the categories can take any one of the following forms. Persistence is alone real, change is alone real, they are equally real, neither is real. The first will be called idealism, the second nominalism and the third realism. The fourth has no historic tradition in the West. (shrink)

Of recent years there have appeared in the literature several attempts to apply to the subject matter of chemistry mathematical theories which had not thitherto found any use in that field. With the spirit and purpose of such attempts, the author of this paper is thoroughly in sympathy. But some of the investigators who have undertaken this kind of pioneer work in applied mathematics have apparently entered upon their tasks without appreciating the difficulties involved, and have hence produced results more (...) likely to obscure than to clarify their subjects. (shrink)

Given the enchanted worldview of pentecost-alism, what possibility is there for a uniquely pentecostal intervention in the science-theology dialogue? By asserting the centrality of the miraculous and the fantastic, and being fundamentally committed to a universe open to surprise, does not pentecostalism forfeit admission to the conversation? I argue for a distinctly pentecostal contribution to the dialogue that is critical of regnant naturalistic paradigms but also of a naive supernaturalism. I argue that implicit in the pentecostal social imaginary is a (...) distinct conception of nature that is amenable to science but in conflict with naturalism. (shrink)

The range and the reach of beliefs always involve the whole individual. organs are only the agents of organisms: the individual acts through his parts, thinks with his brain, feels through his senses, acts by means of his muscles; but the entire man is always engaged. beliefs are acquired by thought, feeling or action, held in the memory as retention schemata, and issued in individual behavior. beliefs are supported by social pressure, and are stored in the unconscious as ontology.

Neither income nor wealth should be too highly unequal. But there is a fundamental distinction between pay for work and the ownership of capital assets. The reasons to moderate these inequalities therefore differ, and the arguments are best considered separately.

This work presents an annotated text of the most comprehensive and detailed arguments in Erasmus's conflict with the Catholic, conservative, scholastic theologians, the Declarationes. It also shows the contrast between the scholastic/ /logical and the humanist/rheorical approach to Scripture and to theological questions.

RésuméPour les Grecs en général et pour Platon en particulier, il y avait trois sujets principaux d'intérět: la nature, Dieu et l'homme. Pour Platon, Dieu était l'intermédiaire entre le monde naturel des apparences et celui des ětres; et pour Aristote, Dieu se trouvait aux deux extrémités d'un monde naturel unique en devenir. Le Moyen Age s'est occupé uniquement de Dieu et de l'homme. Les œuvres scientifiques grecques émigrèrent vers l'est dans la période hellénistique où elles furent reprises par les Arabes (...) et elles ne retournèrent en Europe que pour rejoindre la joie de la nature qui se manifeste dans l'art grec et dans celui de la Renaissance. La Réformation ébranla la théologie si violemment que l'homme seul devint le sujet de l'étude philosophique. Les deux traditions empiristes étaient nées: l'empirisme scientifique qui s'occupe de la nature et l'empirisme philosophique qui s'occupe de l'homme. Le premier devint objectif dans ses intérěts, le second subjectif. Ils ne se rencontrèrent pas, et ainsi la philosophie ne représenta jamais correctement l'empirisme scientifique. Chacun des deux a sa propre place, mais leur confusion a retardé le développement des sciences sociales et a empěché la compréhension de ce qu'est la science en général. Pour rétablir l'importance des deux types d'empirisme dans l'opinion commune, il faudra les distinguer et développer chaque théorie sur des bases différentes. La philosophie des sciences comme branche spéciale de la philosophie devra apprendre à observer ce que les hommes de science font et non à écouter ce qu'ils pensent que signifie ce qu'ils font.For the Greeks generally and for Plato in particular there were three absorbing interests: nature, God and man. For Plato, God was the intermediary in a two‐storeyed natural world of being and appearance; and for Aristotle, God stood at both ends of a single natural world of becoming. The Middle Ages were concerned exclusively with God and man. Greek scientific works went east in the Hellenistic Age, where they were taken over by the Moslems; and only returned to Europe in time to join the rediscovery of the joy of nature as displayed in the Greek art of the Renaissance. The Reformation shook theology so badly that man alone became the object of philosophical study. Thus two traditions of empiricism were born: scientific empiricism, concerned with nature; and philosophical empiricism, concerned with man. The former became objective in its interests, and the latter subjective. They did not meet, and so philosophy has never correctly represented scientific empiricism. Each has its proper place, but the confusion has retarded the development of the social sciences and hampered the general understanding of what science is. In order to restore the importance of both types of empiricism in the common comprehension, they will have to be distinguished, and each theory developed on different grounds. The philosophy of science, as a special branch of philosophy, will have to learn how to watch what the scientists do and not listen to what they say what they are doing means. (shrink)