Earn $5,000?


Embed from Getty Images

IDENTITY PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Dear colleague,

 Identity Proofs are a new kind of proof for the existence of God.

 Basically, Identity Proofs argue that God is identical with something that obviously exists, therefore God exists.

 I would like to present Identity Proofs in the upcoming special issue of Inquiry on new work on the existence of God. But rather than just present the Identity Proofs themselves, I would also like to invite you to write an article about Identity Proofs from your own specialism. You are entirely free with regard to the angle and stance towards Identity Proofs. Possible topics/angles include:

– Are Identity Proofs really new? Or are there others who already presented similar arguments?

– How do Identity Proofs relate to Kant, e.g. ‘The only possible ground of proof for demonstrating the existence of God’?

– How do Identity Proofs relate to Thomas of Aquino’s claim that ‘Deus est ipsum esse subsistens’?

– What role, if any, may Identity Proofs play in the current philosophical debate on the existence of God?

– How do Identity Proofs relate to other (e.g. classical) proofs and arguments for the existence of God?

– Is the, somewhat odd, logical form of the Identity Proofs valid?

– Is the simplicity and directness of Identity Proofs an advantage or disadvantage?

– Can Identity Proofs benefit from a more sophisticated treatment?

– Is the key-premise that ‘God is being’, of the first Identity Proof, credible, supported by scripture, mystics, etc.?

– Is the key-premise that ‘I am God’ (i.e. ‘divine union’), of the second Identity Proof, credible, supported by scripture, mystics, etc.?

– Is the idea of God being attributeless (e.g. unknowable, incomparable, incomprehensible) consistent?

– What may Identity Proofs mean to theists, atheists, agnostics, and/or ignostics?

– New variants of Identity Proofs? (I.e. alternatives for that which is identical to God and obviously exists)?

– And so on.

Thanks to a generous offer from my sponsor, LINEA RECTA LIMITED, I am ready to pay $ 5,000.- to anyone whose article on Identity Proofs is published in the upcoming special issue of Inquiry on new work on the existence of God, under the following conditions:

– An abstract of the article is to be sent to me, ruud.schuurman@linea-recta.com, latest by November 30, 2016.

– The article, abstract, and keywords are to be sent to me, latest by January 31, 2017.

– The article, abstract, and keywords are to be submitted to Inquiry via Taylor and Francis’ online submission system: http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=sinq20&page=instructions, latest by January 31, 2017, while mentioning that the article is submitted for the upcoming special issue of Inquiry on new work on the existence of God.

– A grand total of $ 50,000.- is available. If more than 10 articles about Identity Proofs are published in the upcoming special issue of Inquiry on new work on the existence of God, the reimbursement per article will be lowered to: $ 50,000.- divided by the number of articles about Identity Proofs that are published in the upcoming special issue of Inquiry on new work on the existence of God.

You can download a copy of the (background) paper on Identity Proofs from:

https://www.academia.edu/12571502/New_proof_for_the_existence_and_identity_of_GOD

or https://sites.google.com/a/linea-recta.com/fp/a-new-proof-for-the-existence-of-god

Please feel free to contact me with questions/comments about the content of the paper and/or about your ideas for your article, ruud.schuurman@linea-recta.com

If you would like me to keep you up to date on developments, if any, please let me know, ruud.schuurman@linea-recta.com

If you would like to receive a MS Word version of the background paper (to easier navigate, insert comments, track changes, copy from), please let me know, ruud.schuurman@linea-recta.com

For any other queries, please contact me, ruud.schuurman@linea-recta.com

Kind regards,

Ruud

Ruud Schuurman | ruud.schuurman@linea-recta.com
https://linea-recta.academia.edu/RuudSchuurman
INSTITUTE OF FIRST PHILOSOPHY | www.linea-recta.com/fp

S’s Sermon: NOT by chalk and talk

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglica...

Stained glass at St John the Baptist’s Anglican Church http://www.stjohnsashfield.org.au, Ashfield, New South Wales. Illustrates Jesus’ description of himself “I am the Good Shepherd” (from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11). This version of the image shows the detail of his face. The memorial window is also captioned: “To the Glory of God and in Loving Memory of William Wright. Died 6th November, 1932. Aged 70 Yrs.” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Philosophical Society of England has advocated both the use of philosophical material, and perhaps more importantly, philosophical methods in schools, a prominent strand in its history since the 1930s. We reprint from the archives Bernard Youngman’s 1952 assessment of the task of a philosophical education, a task he bases on Bible study and describes as part of leading the young untutored mind towards love of wisdom and knowledge. The teacher, he warns, “must value freedom of thought and revere independence of mind; he must at all times be as Plato so succinctly put it – midwife to his pupils’ thoughts.”

How Mr Youngman combined this duty with his other one, also hinted at, of bringing the young to the realisation that Christianity is the ‘highest’ form of philosophy is part of the challenge. And there are other responsibilities too, of course. 

In Ecclesiastes  there is bitterness and cynicism enough to challenge any adolescent; there is clearly an attitude of sheer materialism, and the writer is devastatingly frank in his statements God, he says, is far away, and not interested in the world or the people in it; He allows evil to flourish all is vanity! Man is just the victim of chance and time. But, he adds, have a good time while the going is good. Here is an almost modern pessimism, and a small dose of this philosophy is probably quite sufficient for the average adolescent.  (Most ‘Agreed Syllabuses’ recommend chapters xi and xii as being enough.)

But the great thing to remember, he concludes, “is that the work must be theirs – by search, preparation, explanation, drama, brains trust, question and answer, project, exploration, study – NOT the teacher’s, by chalk and talk!”  – Source

 


Losing One’s Cherry: Reactions to Rorty’s Contingency, irony, and solidarity

Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity

Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

About two hundred and fifty years ago a young lad in Virginia chopped down his father’s English cherry tree. The important point about the story evidently is that the boy was instantly honest about what he had done. So presumably we are not supposed to enquire too keenly into his motives. Still, for all one’s admiration for young George Washington’s apparent candour, one does wonder. Richard Rorty, a more recent resident of Virginia, presents a similar problem. For many years now, from within the ranks of the academic establishment, he has been hacking away tirelessly at our Anglo-American philosophical traditions, urging us to clear away the old epistemological undergrowth, so that we can focus on stirring new postmodern vistas. In the process he has become the leading North American spokesman for a revolution in modern philosophy, a rejection of all searches for foundations, an enterprise which would see an end to traditional concerns and instead a concentration upon philosophy as one of the participants in a continuing cultural conversation, therapeutic rather than edifying.