Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-10-16T21:57:17Z

NosnhoJE: /* Obama and Islam */ "taqiyya" and "takeyya" are the same doctrine, just different Romanizations - and it's the Urdu pronounciation, not "Pakistani", which is not a language

''"Obama" redirects here. For other uses see [[Obama (disambiguation)]].''

'''Barack Hussein Obama, II''' (born in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961) is the 2008 nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] for [[President of the United States of America|president]].<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama has served as a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] since 2004. On August 23 he chose [[Senator Joseph Biden]] as his running mate. In 2007, Obama was rated the most [[liberal]] Senator by the National Journal, who had rated [[Senator John Kerry]] the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well.<ref>http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/</ref> If elected, Obama would likely become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and could use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office.<ref>Christian Science Monitor, ''At swearing in, congressman [Keith Ellison, D Minnesota, who is a Muslim] wants to carry Koran. Outrage ensues.'', by Jane Lampman, December 07, 2006, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1207/p01s03-uspo.html]"In Congress, newly elected representatives do not put their left hands on any book. They raise their right hands, and are sworn in together as the speaker of the House administers the oath of office. Some do carry a book, according to House historians, and some choose to photograph a private swearing-in afterward with their hand on the Bible."</ref><ref>Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]</ref>

[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Obama, on the campaign trail, stands with folded hands while [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] honor the flag by placing their hands over their heart during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a [[teleprompter]] and rarely allows tough questions.<ref>After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.</ref><ref name="teleprompter">http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet.<ref>This was first displayed in the Saddleback Forum, and has occurred subsequently also.</ref> His most recent debate performances illustrate that he may have been extensively coached over the course of 2008, although he still repeatedly fumbles at moments where he moves off his memorized remarks.

Obama has not disclosed who really wrote his so-called autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," but a comparison of his speaking with that book indicates the unlikelihood that he wrote it. In fact, a computer analysis strongly suggests that Obama's friend, the terrorist Bill Ayers, was the author of key parts of the book.<ref>www.cashill.com, ''Who Wrote “Dreams From My Father"?'', by Jack Cashill, October 9, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/who_wrote_dreams_from.htm] Jack Cashill compared the writing style of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', with Barak Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Ayres had ghostwritten ''Dreams''. A computer comparison of Obama's so-called autobiography with that of his friend's, the terrorist Bill Ayers, supports the theory that Ayers actually wrote parts of Obama's book. "In assessing the signature of sample passages from Dreams," the experienced analyst found "a very strong match to all of the Ayers samples" that he processed.</ref><ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815</ref>

==Obama and Islam==

Obama is likely to be [[Muslim]], despite his denials, because:

*Obama's background and education are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2</ref><ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm. During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]</ref>
*Obama's middle name means "a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad," which most Christians would not retain.<ref>See, e.g., [http://islam.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=islam&cdn=religion&tm=4&f=10&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.sudairy.com/arabic/masc.html] After Obama became politically ambitious, he declared himself to be a [[Christian]], yet he never replaced his [[Muslim]] name "Hussein" with a Christian one as most do when they undergo a religious conversion. For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]]. "It is common for those converting to a new religion to change their name on conversion"[http://www.ukdp.co.uk/pages/religiousconversion.php] or adopt a Christian name at [[baptism]].[http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-name]</ref>
*Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."<ref>Obama declared, "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I]</ref>
*Obama uses the Muslim Urdu pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.<ref>Obama repeatedly pronounced "Pakistan" as "Pokiston" in the first presidential debate.</ref>
*Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, the Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.<ref>For example, Obama writes in his own autobiography, "Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me. The blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will. ... [E]ven as I imagine myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/does_obama_know_america.html]</ref>
*Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.<ref>In his book, Obama oddly claims to have been baptized without giving his age or date, and later gave a date that postdates his political ambition (1992).</ref>
*On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,<ref>http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=fa8cf1bf-2cc8-4d6e-b72d-a07d406e19ff</ref> which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/</ref>
*Contrary to [[Christianity]], the Islamic doctrine of [[taqiyya]] encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
*Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity, leading one group to demonstrate with a 7-part video series, "Why Barack Obama is Not a Christian."<ref>http://www.christianadc.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=23073&articleId=3249</ref>
*Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became "churched" in a 2007 speech: "It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'"<ref>[http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15363 Obama, ACORN, and the churches] SperoNews, October 7, 2008</ref>

Obama downplays his [[Islamic]] background by claiming that his [[Kenya|Kenyan]] [[Muslim]] father was a "confirmed [[atheist]]" before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics or non-religious.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_14.html</ref> There is apparently no evidence of any Christian activities or local church participation by Obama while he was in Massachusetts from 1988 to 1991. Finally, Obama abruptly left his church in Chicago in 2008 when it became politically controversial, without first finding another church to join.

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states.<ref> [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20080528.asp Barack Potatoe Obama?]</ref> He could never explain where the false number of 57 came from, but it has been observed that there are 57 [[Islamic]] states and Obama was educated at an [[Islamic]] grade school while he lived in an [[Islamic]] country.<ref>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/</ref>

__TOC__ 

==Obama and Elitism==

Asked to explain why working-class [[Democrats]] do not support him while campaigning for the [[Pennsylvania]] primary, Obama replied "it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref> In response to outrage when his remarks were unexpectedly publicized, Obama replied, I "didn't say it as well as I should have."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref>

To counter the view by many that Obama is an elitist, he began running campaign ads claiming that he "worked his way through college and Harvard Law." This claim was an exaggeration as Obama only held summer jobs while in college and law school<ref>http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html</ref>, and he would have likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students.

==Insights==

Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_ignorance_watch_1.asp</ref>

Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams from My Father'', Obama admitted using illegal drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, which he referred to as "blow" and "pot" respectively, in his high school years and into his college years, before claiming to choose a different path in life.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref> Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering.

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961 and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref> In his famous 2002 speech<ref>http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php</ref> at an anti-war rally, Obama said that he was against "dumb wars" and expressed some reservations about the Iraq War because he disagrees with the ideological agendas of the Bush administration, but he did not explicitly oppose the war. In his 2004 Democrat Convention speech, Obama said that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq War.

Obama's campaign "is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer."<ref>http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs</ref>

===Statements===
Obama has been noted by several independent sources as misquoting historical events and statements by famous persons. A notable example came after Obama's win in the [[North Carolina]] democratic primary. Obama was quoted as saying, "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies as Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." (Franklin Delano) Roosevelt spoke with none of the [[Axis]] or [[Japanese]] leaders and the the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender. (President) [[Harry Truman]] took over for FDR and continued his unconditional surrender philosophy as well as ending [[World War II]] with an atomic bomb.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_needs_to_study_history_b.html</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama II was allegedly born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. His days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays were spent praying in a Mosque with his stepfather. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pipes_obama_muslim/2008/10/09/138898.html Obama 'Lying' About Muslim Past, Expert Says] NewsMax, October 9, 2008</ref> After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

For college, Obama initially attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before transferring to [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]] and graduating without honors with a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in political science. Obama refuses to describe his academic performance at Columbia despite commenting about New York during this period and despite disclosures of the academic record for all other major-party presidential candidates since at least 2000.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/</ref>

After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the ''Harvard Law Review'', which uses racial quotas, in 1989. He was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990, a story that was immediately promoted in the [[New York Times]].<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&scp=3&sq=Obama%201990&st=cse</ref> He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991, but did not serve in a clerkship. Federal clerkships are the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as the director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]].

A March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref>

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] makes him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held a single hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he only visited in 2008.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.

In June 2008, Obama voted with the Democratic party to kill the sunset provision of the [[Bush]] tax cuts. By letting these tax cuts expire, single mothers with two kids will pay an additional $1,800 annually. Married couples with incomes of $50,000 will pay an additional $2,180 annually. Elderly couples will pay an additional $2,000 annually and a family of four will pay 191% more per year in taxes. Barack Obama often claims to be for taxing the rich their fair share. By voting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, Obama is taxing most middle class and blue collar families.

Obama and the Democratic-led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. Some argue that this bill depletes the US's volunteer military personnel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed.

As senator, Obama has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks which averages to $500,000. per day over four years, <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> for which the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 10% in 2007 (18% lifetime).<ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]</ref> A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. <ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']</ref>

According to a Fox News report on October 5th, Obama has taken more than $126,000. in campaign contribution from [[Fannie Mae]] in a little over three years. This ranks him second, only Chris Dodd has received more campaign contribution dollars from Fannie Mae.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

Barack Obama continued to collect money for a 2010 Senate re-election campaign as late as June 2008, and has filed reports recently indicating that money is still pouring into this fund. This is especially notable because it is an efficient way of sidetracking donations from his Presidential race. The website<obamasenate2010.gov> is now defunct.

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. From his remarks, he states that he has "one more to go" and stated he couldn't visit Hawaii and Alaska, indicating he meant to say, "forty-seven states".

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, and went on to become the unofficial Democratic nominee.

At a campaign event in Elkhart, Indiana, a seven-year-old girl asked Barack Obama why he wants to be President. He replies,
'''"America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children."''' <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/08/09/mostly-mia-obamas-downer-america-delivered-7-year-old Media Mostly MIA on Obama's 'America No Longer What It Once Was' Downer Delivered to 7 Year-Old] Newsbusters.org, August 9, 2008</ref>

Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.

On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Healthcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presented the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.

Senator Obama visited U.S. troops in Iraq in 2006<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops in Iraq]</ref> and in Afghanistan and Kuwait in 2008<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops and officials in Afghanistan and Kuwait]</ref>

Obama's tax plan calls for increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans, while cutting taxes for the middle class. According to the non-partisan [[Tax Policy Center]], most Americans would pay less taxes than under Senator McCain's plan.<ref>[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749 An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Updated September 12, 2008]</ref> According to another non-partisan group, Americans for Tax Reform, tax-payers would clearly be burdened by an Obama presidency.<ref>[http://www.atr.org/content/html/2008/june/0616-obama_mccaintaxes.html McCain vs. Obama on Taxes] Americans For Tax Reform, June 2008</ref>

===Campaign financing===
Obama is the first presidential candidate to reject public financing. He broke his promise to accept it in the hope that his powerful fund-raising machine would generate far more money than the $84.1 million McCain is getting in public funding. Indeed, on August 14th, the Obama campaign announced it had received donations from 2 million individuals, setting new records. Obama raised $272 million for the primaries and expects to raise $300 million for the general election. However the Republican National Committee has been raising much more than the Democratic National Committee and each candidate had about $100 million in cash on September 1. Each expects to spend about $300 million by November. However, Obama is obliged to devote much of his time to fund raising among supporters rather than campaigning among undecided voters.<ref> see [http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/09/was-obama-right-to-opt-out-of-public-financing.aspx Andrew Romano, "Was Obama Right to Opt Out of Public Financing?," ''Newsweek'' (Sept. 9, 2008) online]</ref> Among his backers is homosexual pornography baron [[Terrence Bean]].

===Secrecy===

The Democratic party feels it necessary to keep all questions about Obama at a safe distance. It is an unprecedented move to keep secrets about a Presidential candidate. The following questions remain sealed from the public. <ref>[http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-sent-obama-why-has-he-refused-to.html Who sent Obama? Why has he refused to release these basic documents?] ObamaWTF.blogspot.com</ref>

# Certified Copy of original Birth certificate(see certificate controversy below)
# Columbia College records
# Columbia Thesis paper
# Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
# [[Harvard]] College records
# Illinois State Senate records
# [[Illinois]] State Senate schedule
# [[Law]] practice client list and billing records/summary
# Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers
# Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
# Occidental College records
# Parent's [[Marriage]] Certificate
# Record of baptism
# Selective Service Registration
# Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
# Scholarly articles
# Access to his Grandmother
# List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists

Obama keeps donations secret by exploiting a loophole that allows campaigns to refuse to divulge donations under $200.00. This is useful to the candidate because many of his contributions are from dubious foreign or illegal sources. It is described as the "largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html</ref>

===Tone===

Many observers have criticized Obama's campaign for its incivility. For instance, John McCain's wife Cindy noted that Obama is running "the dirtiest campaign in American history."

Obama's smears usually fall into two categories: race-baiting and distortions. On October 10, 2008, Obama surrogate Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) typified the campaign by comparing Sen. McCain to racial segregationists and Klansmen. "Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division," Lewis exclaimed before comparing Sen. McCain to segregationist Democrat George Wallace, further noting that he, "...never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged [the attacks in which] four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama." <ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/mccain.lewis/index.html?eref=rss_politics</ref> This is particularly harsh to Sen. McCain because he fondly admires Lewis. <ref>http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-04.txt</ref>

As for the distortions and personal attacks, Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider. For instance, Obama responded with a subtle reference to Alzheimer's disease when Sen. McCain criticized his foreign policy in May 2008, alleging that Sen. McCain "lost his bearings" <ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Obama_McCain_offensive_losing_his_bearings.html</ref>. Senior Adviser Mark Salter noted, "He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning." <ref>http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/salter_obama_attacked_mccains.php</ref>. In reference to Gov. Palin, Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her. <ref>http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php</ref> Some argue this is a FEC violation because it lacked obligatory label denoting it was sponsored by the Obama Campaign. <ref>http://eclipseweb.blogspot.com/2008/09/vicious-anti-sarah-palin-smear-campaign.html</ref> One of the biggest distortions by Obama is that 95% of all taxpayers will get a tax cut. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama's 95% Illusion] Wall Steet Journal, October 13, 2008</ref> Without the distortion, Obama is proposing income re-distribution because those families that pay no taxes, one-third, will get money from the wealthy top 5%.

Another feature of the Obama campaign is the unruly audience. CNN reported in October of 2008 <ref>http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,3565842635.aspx</ref>, that people are calling John McCain a terrorist at these events. According to Sen. McCain, "I've heard the [label terrorist], unfortunately, at Senator Obama's rallies being said about me. There's always a fringe element." Other eyewitness reports are harsher <ref>http://theinvigilator.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-front-of-disgust.html</ref>.

== Positions and Qualifications ==
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again." <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref>
The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Barack's wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref>{{QuoteBox|"If they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."}} Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.
[[Image:Features ayers1.jpg|175px|thumb|right|[[Weather Underground]] co-founder Bill Ayers<ref>http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1a.pdf</ref> stomps on the American flag in this 2001 pose for Chicago Magazine.]]

Obama, having been asked about his associations with [[William Ayers]], an unrepentant [[terrorist]],<ref>[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/]</ref> he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. Ayers and his wife, [[Bernardine Dohrn]], hosted a fundraiser for Obama in their home in 1995 at the start of Obama's political career. Obama compares his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref>
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.
"The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions"

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in a transparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref>

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref name="teleprompter" /> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book, or organizing community events.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

After [[D.C. v. Heller]], Obama claimed to support Second Amendment rights.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

He believes children should be taught sex education in kindergarten, although in what he refers to as "an age-appropriate manner".<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

Barack Obama, in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to argue that the Iraq War should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to "dumb wars". At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Obama, has said that he does not know whether he would have voted for or against the Iraq War. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraeus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.

Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him [[George W. Bush|President George Bush]] or even Mr. George Bush. Obama has also disrespectfully called him 'George Bush'. Oddly, when Bill Clinton spoke with Obama on September 11th, 2008 predicting he would win handily, Obama responded, "There you go, you can take it from the president of the United States."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/campaign.wrap/index.html</ref> It appears Obama will use the term for a former President, but will not do the same for the actual President. Examples of Obama's treatment of our current President:
* "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy," Obama said <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/], CNN Obama blasts Bush McCain, May 16, 2008</ref>
* "For all his talk about independence, the centerpiece of John McCain's economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies," <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/10/obama_takes_the_offensive_vs_mccain/] Boston Globe Obama takes offensive vs. McCain, June 10, 2008</ref>
* "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists." <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403386.stm], BBC Obama attacks Bush over Iran , May 15, 2008</ref>
* Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to "John McCain's president, George W. Bush" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_mccain/2008/08/18/122924.html No More Hugs: Obama Tears Into McCain] AP, August 18, 2008</ref> Side note, George W. Bush is also Barack Obama's President.

== Foreign policy experience ==
In his presidential campaign, Obama bragged<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.html</ref> that "foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident" and then cited "having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa". He lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10, and he later discovered that his father had some other kids in Africa.

While campaigning, he has visited several foreign countries. In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.<ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/</ref>

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

Obama and his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. The church embraces black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church. His response blames the media and not the rhetoric on display <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, may 31, 2008</ref>{{QuoteBox|“It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace..."}} Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statements "G-d damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."

[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]

[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref>

Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.

{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref>

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.'' (B. Obama and, allegedly, William Ayers) ISBN 0307383415
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.'' (B. Obama) ISBN 0307455874
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak) ISBN 0786720573
* ''Change We Can Believe In. Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise.'' (B. Obama)
* ''The Case Against Barack Obama. The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. '' (David Freddso) ISBN 1596985666
* ''The Obama Nation. Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.'' (Jerome R. Corsi) ISBN 1416598065
* ''Obama Unmasked. Did Slick Hollywood Handlers Create the Perfect Candidate?'' (Floyd Brown and Lee Trexler) ISBN 0936783591
* ''Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.'' (Andy Martin) ISBN 0965781240
* ''The Audacity of Deceit. Barack Obama's War on American Values.'' (Brad O'Leary) ISBN 1935071025

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.<ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008</ref>

[[McCain]] Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/mccain_obama/2008/06/17/105265.html], AP McCain Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set, June 17, 2008</ref>

===Birth Certificate Controversy===
There has been some controversy over the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and his Constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President.<ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI=]</ref> After initially refusing to produce a birth certificate in response to such rumors, the Obama campaign eventually endorsed a document posted on the Daily Kos as
authentic.<ref>[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616 Obama's Birth Certificate]</ref> The response is split regarding the birth certificate. Some commentators, such as those at the National Review, are satisfied with the document.<ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=]</ref> However, an analyst at the Israel Insider website, has concluded based on a photographic analysis of the document that the birth certificate has been altered and is likely not Obama's true birth certificate.<ref>[http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm]</ref>

On August 21st, 2008, Factcheck.org published an article regarding the controversy.<ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Born in the U.S.A.]</ref> The site stated, "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." In addition, the site posted high-resolution photographs of the birth certificate, which clearly showed the raised seal, stamp of Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka, and certificate number. The birth date corresponds to a birth announcement published in the ''Honolulu Advertiser '' on Sunday, August 13, 1961. <ref>http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-born-in-hawaii-wrong-can-of-worms/</ref>

A Philadelphia attorney, Phillip Berg, has filed a lawsuit against the DNC and Barack Obama. Berg maintains that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia. Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama] Newsbusters.org, August 22, 2008</ref>

Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982. Attorney Philips Berg's lawsuit is being challenged by the Obama Campaign. Instead of producing the original birth certificate in court and put the matter to rest, they seek to have the lawsuit dismissed. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/29/fight-smears-website-admits-obama-was-kenyan-citizen-wheres-msm 'Fight the Smears' Website Admits Obama was Kenyan Citizen: Where's the MSM?] NewsBusters.org, September 29, 2008</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[The_Honorable_James_David_Manning]]
*[[Black_Liberation_Theology]]
*[[Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now_%28ACORN%29]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]
*[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 Voting Record of Barack Hussein Obama]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Muslims]]

Daniel Dennett

2008-07-07T08:54:34Z

NosnhoJE: /* Conscious Philosophy */ Dennett isn't /that/ popular...

'''Daniel Dennett''' is a philosophy professor at [[Tufts University]] who actively promotes the [[naturalistic]] world view through such books as ''[[Darwin’s Dangerous Idea]]''.

==Conscious Philosophy==

Dennett is widely regarded as one of the premier philosophers in the world in the area of consciousness and his book [[Consciousness Explained]] is regarded by some as among the most important text in naturalist philosophy of the mind. In it, he proposes his initial [[multiple drafts model]] of consciousness, where he proposes that there is no single source of consciousness (no [[conscious qualia]], as proposed by many of his contemporaries).

He has been heavily criticized by some of his peers for denying the existence of qualia and sticking with his naturalist models of consciousness (he later expanded the multiple drafts model to the [[fame in the brain]] model in his 2005 book [[Sweet Dreams]]) as he insists that there is no evidence, and that neurological science will, in time, progress to make the idea of qualia, or the source of seemingly inexplicable functions in the mind, obselete.

[[category:Atheists]]
{{atheists}}

Philosophy

2008-07-07T08:43:44Z

NosnhoJE: remove irrelevant content

[[Image:Aristotle.gif|thumb|Aristotle]]
'''Philosophy''' (literally 'love of wisdom', from the Ancient Greek word φιλοσοφία (philosophía), which comes from φίλος (phílos) and σοφία (sophía), meaning friend/lover and wisdom respectively) is an academic discipline concerned with the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality. Philosophy progresses according to various methods of rational inquiry.

Philosophy is accurately described as both the first science and the "Queen of the Sciences". Until the late 19th century, what is now called "science" was subsumed under ''Natural Philosophy''.

Philosophy in the West has its origins in Ancient Greece, ca. 600 B.C. After the fall of the Roman Empire, much of Greek philosophy was lost to the West, preserved only in the Arab world until the time of the Crusades and the Moorish conquest of Spain. Contact with Arab philosophers (especially [[al-Ghazali]], who developed a version of the [[Cosmological argument]] and wrote more than 70 books, [[ibn Rushd]], and [[ibn Sina]]) kick-started the largely dormant philosophical tradition in Europe, beginning the "Academic period", which ended with [[Descartes]] and the beginning of the [[Enlightenment]]. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw a major split between [[Analytic philosophy]] (or Anglophone philosophy) and [[Continental philosophy]]. This divide can be traced back to the late 19th century and a split in focus between [[Gottlob Frege]] and the intellectual descendants of [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Friedrich Hegel]].

The main branches of philosophy are [[Metaphysics]], which is (broadly speaking) the study of what-is; [[Ethics]], the study of correct action; [[Logic]], the rules (both formal and informal) of reason; [[Epistemology]], the study of knowledge, and [[Aesthetics]], the study of the nature of beauty and the artistic criteria of judgment. Notable sub-branches include [[Philosophy of Science]], [[Philosophy of language]], [[Philosophy of Religion]], [[Political Philosophy]], and [[Philosophy of mind]].

== Branches of Analytic Philosophy ==

Broadly speaking, there are a number of topics one would expect to fall under the title '''Philosophy''':

*'''[[Logic]]''': The analysis of terms, propositions and the principles of reasoning
*'''[[Metaphysics]]''': The analysis of concepts which transcend physical science, including the [[Philosophy of mind]].
*'''[[Epistemology]]''': The analysis of the nature of knowledge, how we know, and what we can and cannot know.
*'''[[Ethics]]''': The analysis of the nature of [[morality]] and morals, how and why we determine right from wrong.
*'''[[Political Philosophy]]''': The analysis of the nature of the human public sphere, which one may consider the ethics of the way society is arranged.
*'''[[Philosophy of Science]]''': The analysis of scientific concepts and methodology, which concerns itself mostly with the foundations of [[science]], and interdisciplinary areas.
*'''[[Aesthetics]]''': The analysis of the nature and experience of [[art]] and beauty.

== History of Philosophy ==

Conventionally the History of Western Philosophy is divided into four eras: Ancient, Medieval, Modern and Contemporary.

The Ancient era starts with the [[Presocratic Philosophy|Presocratic]] philosophers and goes until the fall of the Roman empire; The Medieval goes until the end of the [[Middle Ages]]; The Modern up to the 20th century, and The Contemporary up to present.

[[Frederick Copleston]], S.J. (April 10, 1907 - February 3, 1994) was a [[Jesuit]] scholar who wrote the highly respected 9 volume History of Philosophy.

=== Greek Philosophy ===
[[Image:Parmenides book.jpg|240px|right]]
Philosophy in the West begins with [[Thales]] of Miletus, who was the first astronomer in recorded history to accurately predict a solar eclipse. The Milesian School founded by Thales included [[Anaxagoras]], [[Anaximander]], and [[Anaximenes]]. It was [[Pythagoras]] (ca. 582 - 504 BC) who first brought Philosophy into connection with practical life; he also gave Philosophy its name "the love of wisdom". Closely related to Milesianis is the work of [[Heraclitus]] of Ephesus. Around the time of Heraclitus, [[Parmenides]] of Elea, with his pupil [[Zeno]], raised some serious objections to the project of [[Milesian philosophy]]. These objections laid the groundwork for [[Socrates]] and his pupil [[Plato]], and [[Aristotle]], as well as the Atomists, [[Democritus]] and [[Leucippus]]. After the Greek philosophical golden age other systems appeared, like [[Cynicism]], [[Stoicism]], [[Epicureanism]] and [[Skepticism]]. At the closing period of Greek philosophy [[Neoplatonism]] was founded by [[Plotinus|Plotinus of Lycopolis]]. Parmenides' thoughts influenced Plato and through him, all western philosophy. ''While Plato's dialogues are among the supreme philosophical works of the western tradition, it was Parmenides who established the implicit framework of their debates.'' <ref>[http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9972 Parmenides] by Raymond Tallis</ref>

[[Saint Augustine]] (354-430 A.D.), carrying some traces of Plato, has been of momentous importance in the development of Christian thought.

It was Plato, who made ''idea'' a technical term in philosophy, suggesting a world of abstract ideas [[idealism]]; Aristotle on the contrary, shows the real that dwells in the objects of sense; he thought that the natural world needed to be studied and observed for knowledge to be gained. His theory of act and potentiality, of form and ''matter'', is a new solution of the relations between the permanent and the changing; following the first attempts of the [[Presocratic Philosophy]] that conducted to [[Materialism]], ''Aristotle reproaches the Ionian philosophers in general with attempting to explain the evolution of the world without the Nous (intelligence); he regarded [[Protagoras]], who first introduced a spiritual principle, as a sober man among the inebriated.''
<ref> [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12025c.htm Philosophy] Catholic Encyclopedia. </ref>

Since that age up to present days, ''idealism '' and ''materialism'' have been the two main tendencies in the field of philosophy.

=== Medieval era ===
In the West, until the twelfth century, little was known of Plato and Aristotle, except a few dialogues and some treatises on logic. [[Anselm of Canterbury|St. Anselm]] (1O33-1109) made a first attempt at systematizing [[Scholasticism|Scholastic philosophy]]. Some decades later, the Arabic and Byzantine thinkers entered into relation with Western culture, and affecting a philosophical revival; Al-Ghazali, founder of the Ash'ari school of [[Atomism]], entered [[Europe]] through [[ibn Rushd]]; translations of the ancient authors were made and the philosophical works of [[ibn Sina]] and ibn Rushd became better known. In the thirteenth century important names appeared like: [[Maimonides]], Alexander of Hales (ca. 1185 - 1245), St. Bonaventure, [[Albertus Magnus]], [[Roger Bacon]], [[St. Thomas Aquinas]], and in the following century: William of Occam, Eckhart and [[Nicholas of Cusa]], and later, [[Thomas More]] and Grotius. (cf: [[Ibidem]] Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Classifications of Philosophy in this period are mostly akin to the Platonic division into [[logic]], [[ethics]], and [[physics]].

=== Modern era ===
[[Image:JohnStuartMill.jpg|thumb|[[John Stuart Mill]]]]
The main figures from this era are: [[Thomas Hobbes]], [[Rene Descartes ]], [[Gottfried Leibniz]], [[David Hume]], [[Immanuel Kant]], [[Arthur Schopenhauer]], [[Auguste Comte]], [[John Stuart Mill]], [[Herbert Spencer]] and [[Friedrich Nietzsche]].

Dividing Philosophy Kant, distinguishes [[metaphysics]], [[moral]] philosophy, [[religion]], and [[anthropology]].

The most widely accepted scheme, that which still governs the division of the branches of philosophy is due to [[Christian Wolff]] (1679-1755):

This scheme is as follows:

1. Logic.
2. Speculative Philosophy.
* Ontology, or General Metaphysics.
* Special Metaphysics.
: o Theodicy (the study of God).
: o Cosmology (the study of the World).
: o Psychology (the study of Man).

3. Practical Philosophy.
* Ethics
* Politics
* Economics

(cf: [[Ibidem]])

:::::: ''All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions:''

:::::::::''1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope?'' Immanuel Kant.

=== The Twentieth Century ===

This century has offered a wide diversity of orientations. The best known are the French school of [[Existentialism]], the German study of [[Phenomenology]], the [[Positivism|Positivists]] of the Vienna Circle, and the post-Positivist Analytic movement.

==== Existentialists ====

The earliest existentialist was the Christian philosopher [[Søren Kierkegaard]]. [[Henri Bergsson]] (1859 – 1941), 1927 Nobel Prize in Literature, and [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] (1905 – 1980), philosopher, playwright, and novelist, that was the leading exponent of [[existentialism]], are probably the best-known examples of this School. [[Karl Jaspers]] also in Germany.

==== Phenomenology and Hermeneutics ====

[[Edmund Husserl]] (1859 – 1938) founder of [[phenomenology]], [[Martin Heidegger]] (1889 – 1976), and [[Hans-Georg Gadamer]] (1900-2002) are the core writers here.

==== Logical Positivists ====

The [[Vienna Circle]] philosophers, most notably [[Moritz Schlick]], [[Rudolf Carnap]], [[Herbert Feigl]], [[Kurt Godel]], and [[Otto Neurath]] established a rigorous tradition called "Logical Empiricism", but usually referred to as logical positivism. This tradition, a stricter development of [[Auguste Comte]]'s positivism, is no longer an active research program, unlike [[Existentialism]] and [[Phenomenology]].

==== Structuralism ====

[[Structuralism]] is a theory that uses culturally interconnected signs to reconstruct systems of relationships rather than studying isolated, material things in themselves, with members such as [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] (1857 – 1913), Swiss linguist, Roman Jakobson (1896 – 1982), Russian-American linguist and literary critic, Anthropologist [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]] (1908 – ), French anthropologist, [[Roland Barthes]] (1915 – 1880), French critic, and Michel Foucault (1926 – 1984), French philosopher and historian. Foucault is renowned for historical studies that reveal the sometimes morally disturbing power relations inherent in social practices. <ref> [http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/structuralism Structuralism] </ref>

==== Others ====

The Frankfurt School , a group of researchers associated with the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute of Social Research), founded in 1923 as an autonomous division of the University of Frankfurt; a group of researchers associated with the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute of Social Research), founded in 1923, with members such as [[Theodor Adorno]], Theodor Wiesengrund , Walter Benjamin (1892 – 1940), a German essayist and critic (He is known for his synthesis of eccentric Marxist theory and Jewish messianism) and [[Herbert Marcuse]] (1898 – 1979), U.S.;<ref> [http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Philosophhy Philosophy] </ref> Also, criticism of [[Positivism]] by German [[Jürgen Habermas]] (1929– ), a professor at the University of Frankfurt with the [[Critical Theory]].

Some other important names are: George Edward Moore (1873 – 1958), English philosopher, [[Bertrand Russell]] (1872 – 1970), [[British]] philosopher, [[mathematician]], and social reformer, and [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]] (1889 – 1951), Austrian philosopher.

=== American Philosophy ===

Some scholars have said that American philosophers’ focus on the interconnections of theory and practice, on experience and community, but different concerns and themes have waxed or waned at different times. Through the middle of the 20th century, at least, American philosophers were actively engaged in shaping and reflecting the development of American culture.<ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/american.htm American Philosophy]</ref>

==== Transcendentalism ====
Founded by [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]] (1803 - 1882) who became the most widely known man of letters in America in the 19th century. [[Transcendentalism]], ''of which Emerson was the leading figure, resembled British [[Romanticism]] in its precept that a fundamental continuity exists between man, nature, and God, or the divine... Matter and spirit are not opposed.'' <ref> [http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/emerson.htm Ralph Waldo Emerson] </ref>
==== Pragmatism ====
Main figures are: [[Charles Peirce]] (1839-1914), [[William James]] (1842-1910), [[John Dewey]] (1859-1952), and [[Richard Rorty]] (1931-2007).

==== Philosophy of Religion ====

The best-known American philosopher of religion is without a doubt [[Alvin Plantinga]] (1932- ) at the [[University of Notre Dame]]; also well-known are [[John Hick]] (1922- ), who, though born in England, did much of his work at [[Claremont University]] in southern California, and professor [[William Alston]] (1921- ) working at [[Syracuse University]].

==== Analytic Philosophers ====
[[Image:John Rawls.jpg|thumb|Harvard philosopher John Rawls.]]
America has produced a great many philosophers in the Analytic tradition. A brief list of notables:

* [[W.V.O. Quine]]
* [[Saul Kripke]]
* [[Kit Fine]]
* [[Ted Sider]]
* [[Robert Stalnaker]]
* [[Daniel Dennett]]
* [[John Searle]]
* [[Richard Montague]]
* [[Paul Grice]]

Especially well-known to non-philosophers is [[John Rawls]] (1921 - 2002) (political and moral philosophy) author of ''A Theory of Justice'' (1971), ''Political Liberalism'' (1993), ''The Law of Peoples'' (1999), and ''Justice as Fairness: A Restatement'' (2001).

== Eastern Philosophy ==

[[Eastern Philosophy]] comprises mainly the thought of: [[Zoroastrianism]], [[Buddhism]], [[Hinduism]], [[Confucianism]], [[Taoism]], [[Islamism]] and [[Jainism]]. Some scholars include Babylonian philosophy and Korean philosophy.

== See also ==

*[[Greek Philosophy]]
*[[Greek philosophers]]
*[[Agnosticism]]
*[[Empiricism]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.friesian.com/history.htm History of Philosophy]
*[http://www.erraticimpact.com/history_index.htm History of Philosophy - Resources]
*[http://www.questia.com/read/100673611 A History of American Philosophy] Book by Herbert W. Schneider.
*[http://www.molloy.edu/sophia/sophia_texts.htm Edited versions of important texts in philosophy.]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Philosophical systems]]

Talk:Arguments for the existence of God

2008-07-07T07:47:56Z

NosnhoJE: /* Aristotle */ reply, reply, reply... maybe someday I'll be done

Doesn't the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 1980s miniseries, not the Disneyfied movie) say that once God is proven to exist, He won't? ;)--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 22:15, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, but I'm not sure that would qualify as an argument ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:22, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't think Douglas Adams style theology will fly very far on this site. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:31, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:I don't expect it to. I was trying to make a funny. Apparently, I failed. :(--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 22:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

42. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:33, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:Ah, yes. Except the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything is actually 54...

"Six by nine?"

"Forty-two?!"

"I always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe..."
--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 22:36, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

== Freewill ==

The "God exists because there is freewill" argument can be challenged by quantum mechanics. While it is not necessary, even impossible, to describe fully in an article such as this, it should be pointed out that quantum mechanics, due to the uncertainty principal, allows for freewill without God. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:24, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
: I don't know how the uncertainty principle allows for free will. It allows for ''randomness'', which is certainly different from ''determinism,'' but how does ''randomness'' imply that beings can make free, deliberate choices? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:35, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
::It's up for debate in physics. Before quantum mechanics, physicists claimed that it would be possible, in principal, if you knew all the parameters of every particle in the universe and had enough processing power, to calculate and predict the future - therefore no free will. However, since the advent of quantum mechanics, we now know that we can't know all the parameters of even one particle let alone all of them. Now, of course, our ignorance doesn't necessarily mean that these particles don't have a determined future. But most physicists now believe that the probability in quantum mechanics means that the universe is not deterministic even in principal and so the door remains open for free will as a fundamental aspect of the universe. But as I said, it's still debated. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 14:33, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
::: Agreed ... but I don't understand why the potential existence of ''random'' events implies that people have ''free will.'' If a choice I make is prompted by some random quantum event, it's not ''free'' -- it's partly random, and partly determined, but certainly no ''choice.'' For me to freely ''choose'' something, there must be something ''more'' than randomness and determinism ... there must be some force ... call it a ''soul'' ... that is at least somewhat free of physical causation and randomness, and ''chooses'' things ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
::::This is a controversial topic. However, there are plenty of examples where science attempts to explain how quantum events are used by the brain or consciousness to make choices. This is different to simple randomness. As you say, randomness doesn't imply free will - it simply implies ignorance of measuring techniques or unpredictability. But ideas such as the Quantum Mind, while not a fully formed theory, is an example of how science attempts to classify free will as a natural phenomenon without the need for the supernatural or God. Some theologians have also postulated that natural free will must exist because God would design a natural universe with the capacity for free will - His Creation is, after all, perfect. While naturalistic free will might not be correct, it should be added to your otherwise excellent list of objections. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:18, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
: Very interesting stuff -- thanks for bringing it to the fore. I read a little about Quantum Mind, and I can see how they attempt to use quantum thought to explain ''consciousness'', but I still can't see how they use it to explain ''free will''. I found an interesting article on it here ... http://www.cneuroscience.org/Topics/Will/Quantum_Free_Will.htm ... the authors had a similar reaction to mine:
::"These theoretical physicists show a profound misunderstanding of what free will is. The human will is not a random action, dependent upon quantum uncertainty or a toss of a player's dice. It is the free choice of the human will, as it is determined by the intellect. It is a not a human will determined by the material causality of an instinctual nature. Rather, it is free (whence the term 'free' will) from material causality, and it finds its efficient causality in intellectual self-determination."
: That being said, I think you're right, and arguments about a "naturalistic free will" should be there ... I'll take a stab at it ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:04, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::I think ''my'' key word in all this would be "attempt". Science doesn't explain free will but there is much scientific conjecture that attempts to - Quantum Mind being but one. What they are doing, of course, is applying the scientific method to consciousness/mind/free will/etc. As the supernatural is outside the realm of science, the ''only'' method for investigation they have is the scientific one in the natural universe. Stepping out of that constraint brings science full circle when it used to be called natural philosophy! This means that science can't give us an answer on how (or even if) we have free will - at least not yet - just that the existence of free will doesn't prove the existence of God. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::: I agree with you for the most part ... with one caveat: Your use of the phrase "scientific conjecture." You say science must stay within the constraint of the "natural universe." But I think there's another constraint on science we must take into account -- experiment:)! IMO, the "scientific conjecture" you mention above is an oxymoron. There is science, and there is conjecture, but there's no such thing as a scientific conjecture. A conjecture becomes science when we find a way to test the conjecture, and it passes the test -- and then it's not conjecture anymore -- it's [[falsifiable]] science. Before you can test a proposition, though, it remains only conjecture. Perhaps what you mean is ''materialistic'' conjecture ... meaning conjectures based solely on materialistic causes?
::: I say all this because I think it's important to recognize when "scientists" are out of the realm of science and in the realm of conjecture and philosophy ... where the credibility of "science" doesn't apply, because the rigors of experiment cannot be used and one guess is just as "unscientific" as the next one ... and anytime a scientist (or anyone else for that matter) tells you something he can't experimentally test, he's not acting like a scientist ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, begging your pardon. I actually meant scientific hypothesis rather than conjecture. My bad. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Fun conversation! Thanks for the interesting info on Quantum mind ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:48, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::Indeed. I much prefer conversations like this with, ah, theists, than the "you'll burn in hell" ones I get sometimes. Ideology leaves little for discussion. Your intelligent approach - obviously better informed than mine - is refreshing. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 14:57, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
: Flattered! Seems like when everybody's more interested in learning than in defending themselves, there's very little for anybody to argue about and everybody comes away with more than they arrived with:). [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 17:05, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::Indeed again! Personally I find the last two arguments - free will and consciousness - rather weak. Arguments maybe but certainly not proofs in any meaningful sense. If used to debate with atheists, they can easily be refuted. It makes the case weaker except when there is no debate, i.e. among theists. My edit would be simply to delete those two sections as they detract from the whole article, but that might be controversial. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
==Aristotle==
[[Aristotle]] first of all does prove that an infinite chain of events is impossible. An infinite chain of events disagrees with science. Second of all the cosmological argument is compatible with the God of the Bible, unlike the other editor says, he/she must not be aware that [[Thomas Aquinas]], [[Maimonides]] and others used it to argue that there is a [[God]]. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:23, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

:Where does Aristotle prove that an infinite chain of events is impossible? The argument for the Unmoved Mover is in Metaphysics Lambda (ch. 7), but the claim against an infinite chain of contingent causal interactions is merely presupposed in ch. 6, never actually argued for. If I've missed something, by all means, point me to the source.

: Furthermore, the claim is not that the entity posited by the various forms of the Cosmological Argument is ''incompatible'' with the Christian God, merely that the CA does not go far enough to prove that it ''is'' the Christian God. God certainly is non-contingent, existed at the beginning of the universe, and is sufficient to explain the universe, but those three properties do not add up to all that God is. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 20:33, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also, a note: Of course St. Thomas and many others have used the Cosmological Argument to demonstrate the existence of God. But those authors are fully aware that the Cosmological Argument by itself is not sufficient to prove that the First Cause is the Christian God. There's a lot more work to be done. That's all my edit is saying. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 20:36, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

: Finally, what do you mean by "an infinite chain of events disagrees with science"? If you're going to go to the Big Bang, remember that all science says is that scientific inquiry can't look farther back than that. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 20:38, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
:: Science says that entropy increases over time. This itself rules out an infinite chain of events.
:: Also, your edit that the Big Bang somehow replaces the need for God doesn't, because you then have the question of what caused the Big Bang.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:07, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, more accurately, science says that entropy increases over time in a closed system. But this still does not rule out an infinite chain of events: even in a closed system, it's just the case that eventually, any events which happen will be pretty boring, since they'll just be the static almost-but-not-quite-absolute-zero distribution of matter through space.
::: In re: the Big Bang. Remember that the Kalam formulation of the Cosmological Argument says that anything which ''begins to exist'' must have a cause. The Big Bang is an event, not an object. So as it stands, the Kalam argument is inadequate. You are correct, of course, in saying that if it were changed to admit events as well as objects, the Big Bang would need an explanation, but as it is presented (and as it is presented in the given source, Craig's book), this objection stands. This is why I said "further development is possible". [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 14:45, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

::: So... do you have any further objection to the inclusion of my edits? For your reference, the last edit you reverted actually raises a classic problem for omniscience. There are a few ways out, but the problem is worth noting in an article on this topic. The argument goes like this:
::::* If any subject S '''knows''' some proposition ''p'', then ''p'' is true.
::::* An omniscient being knows everything, including the proposition "Philip will have X for lunch tomorrow", where X is whatever you'll actually have for lunch. Let's call it a sandwich.
::::* So it's true that you'll have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow.
::::* But if it's true that you'll have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow, then you cannot choose to have, say, a slice of pizza for lunch tomorrow.
::: This argument seems to show that omniscience (or, at least, knowledge of the future choices of agents) is incompatible with genuine libertarian free will. The most effective response is probably the Leibnizian theodicy, which you can find in sections 13 and 30 of his ''Discourse on Metaphysics'', because that defense also works (as you might guess) against the problem of evil.
::: If I don't hear from you in the next couple of days, I'll assume you've moved on to other discussions and go back to work here. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 21:32, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: "''...science says that entropy increases over time in a closed system''": Which the universe is.
::::: Unless God exists. Or unless the Universe is cyclical (a proposition which is not ruled out by any current science) [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 03:47, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: "''But this still does not rule out an infinite chain of events: even in a closed system, it's just the case that eventually, any events which happen will be pretty boring, since they'll just be the static almost-but-not-quite-absolute-zero distribution of matter through space''": First, an infinite chain of events sounds pretty much like a perpetual motion machine, which is one of the very things that the laws of thermodynamics ''does'' rule out. Second, we are not talking about almost-nothing events, but enormous, universe-creating events.
:::::No, we are talking about events ''simpliciter''. Nothing in science anywhere rules out an infinite sequence of events. These are meant to be arguments which do not depends on the facts of observation; if they were, they would be vastly weaker in every sense. I am sure you are aware of the difficulties here. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 03:47, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: "''...the Kalam formulation of the Cosmological Argument says that anything which begins to exist must have a cause. The Big Bang is an event, not an object.''": Regardless of what a particular formulation of an argument says, events need causes also.
:::::Hmm... Really? Because according to our best science, individual atomic decay events lack causes. That is to say: Consider, say, an individual atom of U-235. There is a 50% chance that ''that very atom'' will decay within some millions of years (2.06 times 10 to the 6, if I recall correctly). When that atom decays, if its decay was not caused by neutron capture in a nuclear reactor (or other device), there is quite literally ''no reason'' whatever for its decay at that moment. This is good reason to believe that not all events have causes. If you want to expand on the classical Principle of Sufficient Reason to admit events, you are stuck with things like, "God caused Atom #147 to decay at 12:35 PM CST on 8 July 2008". If you're forced to say that God causes ''all'' events, you're a Malebranchian -- not that this is a bad thing, but it's something you'll have to deal with. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 03:47, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: There is a fallacy in your argument about knowledge of the future. What your argument amounts to is the following:
::::* If any subject S '''knows''' some proposition ''p'', then ''p'' is true.
::::* An omniscient being knows everything, including the proposition "Philip will choose to have X for lunch tomorrow", where X is whatever you'll actually have for lunch. Let's call it a sandwich.
::::* So it's true that I'll choose to have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow.
::::* But if it's true that I'll choose to have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow, then I cannot choose to have, say, a slice of pizza for lunch tomorrow.
:::: So the argument is really that in choosing X I cannot choose Y (where X and Y are mutually exclusive). Which is basic logic, not an argument against omniscience.
:::: As for your edits, I wasn't objecting to them in toto, simply because I hadn't thought them through. Rather, I was responding to one point of the argument. If the Big Bang replaces God as the ''direct'' cause of the universe, but God is needed for the Big Bang, it's disingenuous to say that "if the Universe was caused to exist by the Big Bang, there is no need to suppose a Divine cause". And that was my point: proposing the Big Bang is insufficient reason to say that a Divine cause is not required. It just removes the Divine cause one step.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:12, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
::::: Not exactly. The argument is that, if it is ''known'' that you will choose X, then you could not choose Y. It's not an argument against omniscience at all -- it's an argument against the compatibility of omniscience with free will. As I said above, there are various ways around it -- I personally prefer the Leibnizian theodicy -- but it's still a problem that has to be dealt with by anyone who believes in both libertarian free will and an omniscient being. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 03:26, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
::::: And, I should say, you are completely correct. Supposing that the Big Bang caused the Universe just removes the Divine by one step. The point is: that is a step not taken by the Kalam argument; and so the Kalam argument as presented in its most sophisticated form to date is not able to deal with this problem. This is meant to be an encyclopedia; as such it behooves us to deal with only those arguments which have actually been presented in, say, print. The Kalam argument is not sophisticated enough in any current form to deal with the objection I have presented. William Craig (in personal correspondence) has admitted as much, and within the next few years I do not doubt that we will see an updated version of the argument. The problem is a sticky one: if we admit ''events'' into our ontology, we are stuck with (in various areas) some seriously unpalatable results. Craig is more than aware of this (see his piece in Pojman and Rea's ''Philosophy of Religion'' anthology). [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 03:30, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Going back to the big bang, I asked a pyschicist and he said the universe has an age, the only people who try to claim the universe has existed forever are some atheists, but that most atheists agree with the big bang. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 23:56, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
: I fail to see how this is relevant to the arguments at hand. The question is not: "How old is the Universe?"; the question is: "How old could the Universe be?". Since we are making logical arguments here, rather than empirical claims, what some atheists believe or what some theists believe is utterly irrelevant. To which physicist did you speak? At best, that person seems to be misunderstanding the question.
: If you want to get into a credentials fight, I promise I'll win. I would, of course, prefer to win this debate on the merits, but I realize that this is not always possible on the Internet, where I don't have the power to flunk people who aren't paying attention. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 03:26, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Arguments for the existence of God

2008-07-07T07:30:54Z

NosnhoJE: /* Aristotle */ complete reply

Doesn't the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 1980s miniseries, not the Disneyfied movie) say that once God is proven to exist, He won't? ;)--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 22:15, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, but I'm not sure that would qualify as an argument ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:22, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't think Douglas Adams style theology will fly very far on this site. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:31, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:I don't expect it to. I was trying to make a funny. Apparently, I failed. :(--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 22:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

42. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:33, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:Ah, yes. Except the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything is actually 54...

"Six by nine?"

"Forty-two?!"

"I always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe..."
--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 22:36, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

== Freewill ==

The "God exists because there is freewill" argument can be challenged by quantum mechanics. While it is not necessary, even impossible, to describe fully in an article such as this, it should be pointed out that quantum mechanics, due to the uncertainty principal, allows for freewill without God. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:24, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
: I don't know how the uncertainty principle allows for free will. It allows for ''randomness'', which is certainly different from ''determinism,'' but how does ''randomness'' imply that beings can make free, deliberate choices? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:35, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
::It's up for debate in physics. Before quantum mechanics, physicists claimed that it would be possible, in principal, if you knew all the parameters of every particle in the universe and had enough processing power, to calculate and predict the future - therefore no free will. However, since the advent of quantum mechanics, we now know that we can't know all the parameters of even one particle let alone all of them. Now, of course, our ignorance doesn't necessarily mean that these particles don't have a determined future. But most physicists now believe that the probability in quantum mechanics means that the universe is not deterministic even in principal and so the door remains open for free will as a fundamental aspect of the universe. But as I said, it's still debated. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 14:33, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
::: Agreed ... but I don't understand why the potential existence of ''random'' events implies that people have ''free will.'' If a choice I make is prompted by some random quantum event, it's not ''free'' -- it's partly random, and partly determined, but certainly no ''choice.'' For me to freely ''choose'' something, there must be something ''more'' than randomness and determinism ... there must be some force ... call it a ''soul'' ... that is at least somewhat free of physical causation and randomness, and ''chooses'' things ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
::::This is a controversial topic. However, there are plenty of examples where science attempts to explain how quantum events are used by the brain or consciousness to make choices. This is different to simple randomness. As you say, randomness doesn't imply free will - it simply implies ignorance of measuring techniques or unpredictability. But ideas such as the Quantum Mind, while not a fully formed theory, is an example of how science attempts to classify free will as a natural phenomenon without the need for the supernatural or God. Some theologians have also postulated that natural free will must exist because God would design a natural universe with the capacity for free will - His Creation is, after all, perfect. While naturalistic free will might not be correct, it should be added to your otherwise excellent list of objections. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:18, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
: Very interesting stuff -- thanks for bringing it to the fore. I read a little about Quantum Mind, and I can see how they attempt to use quantum thought to explain ''consciousness'', but I still can't see how they use it to explain ''free will''. I found an interesting article on it here ... http://www.cneuroscience.org/Topics/Will/Quantum_Free_Will.htm ... the authors had a similar reaction to mine:
::"These theoretical physicists show a profound misunderstanding of what free will is. The human will is not a random action, dependent upon quantum uncertainty or a toss of a player's dice. It is the free choice of the human will, as it is determined by the intellect. It is a not a human will determined by the material causality of an instinctual nature. Rather, it is free (whence the term 'free' will) from material causality, and it finds its efficient causality in intellectual self-determination."
: That being said, I think you're right, and arguments about a "naturalistic free will" should be there ... I'll take a stab at it ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:04, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::I think ''my'' key word in all this would be "attempt". Science doesn't explain free will but there is much scientific conjecture that attempts to - Quantum Mind being but one. What they are doing, of course, is applying the scientific method to consciousness/mind/free will/etc. As the supernatural is outside the realm of science, the ''only'' method for investigation they have is the scientific one in the natural universe. Stepping out of that constraint brings science full circle when it used to be called natural philosophy! This means that science can't give us an answer on how (or even if) we have free will - at least not yet - just that the existence of free will doesn't prove the existence of God. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::: I agree with you for the most part ... with one caveat: Your use of the phrase "scientific conjecture." You say science must stay within the constraint of the "natural universe." But I think there's another constraint on science we must take into account -- experiment:)! IMO, the "scientific conjecture" you mention above is an oxymoron. There is science, and there is conjecture, but there's no such thing as a scientific conjecture. A conjecture becomes science when we find a way to test the conjecture, and it passes the test -- and then it's not conjecture anymore -- it's [[falsifiable]] science. Before you can test a proposition, though, it remains only conjecture. Perhaps what you mean is ''materialistic'' conjecture ... meaning conjectures based solely on materialistic causes?
::: I say all this because I think it's important to recognize when "scientists" are out of the realm of science and in the realm of conjecture and philosophy ... where the credibility of "science" doesn't apply, because the rigors of experiment cannot be used and one guess is just as "unscientific" as the next one ... and anytime a scientist (or anyone else for that matter) tells you something he can't experimentally test, he's not acting like a scientist ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, begging your pardon. I actually meant scientific hypothesis rather than conjecture. My bad. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Fun conversation! Thanks for the interesting info on Quantum mind ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:48, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::Indeed. I much prefer conversations like this with, ah, theists, than the "you'll burn in hell" ones I get sometimes. Ideology leaves little for discussion. Your intelligent approach - obviously better informed than mine - is refreshing. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 14:57, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
: Flattered! Seems like when everybody's more interested in learning than in defending themselves, there's very little for anybody to argue about and everybody comes away with more than they arrived with:). [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 17:05, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::Indeed again! Personally I find the last two arguments - free will and consciousness - rather weak. Arguments maybe but certainly not proofs in any meaningful sense. If used to debate with atheists, they can easily be refuted. It makes the case weaker except when there is no debate, i.e. among theists. My edit would be simply to delete those two sections as they detract from the whole article, but that might be controversial. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
==Aristotle==
[[Aristotle]] first of all does prove that an infinite chain of events is impossible. An infinite chain of events disagrees with science. Second of all the cosmological argument is compatible with the God of the Bible, unlike the other editor says, he/she must not be aware that [[Thomas Aquinas]], [[Maimonides]] and others used it to argue that there is a [[God]]. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:23, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

:Where does Aristotle prove that an infinite chain of events is impossible? The argument for the Unmoved Mover is in Metaphysics Lambda (ch. 7), but the claim against an infinite chain of contingent causal interactions is merely presupposed in ch. 6, never actually argued for. If I've missed something, by all means, point me to the source.

: Furthermore, the claim is not that the entity posited by the various forms of the Cosmological Argument is ''incompatible'' with the Christian God, merely that the CA does not go far enough to prove that it ''is'' the Christian God. God certainly is non-contingent, existed at the beginning of the universe, and is sufficient to explain the universe, but those three properties do not add up to all that God is. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 20:33, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also, a note: Of course St. Thomas and many others have used the Cosmological Argument to demonstrate the existence of God. But those authors are fully aware that the Cosmological Argument by itself is not sufficient to prove that the First Cause is the Christian God. There's a lot more work to be done. That's all my edit is saying. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 20:36, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

: Finally, what do you mean by "an infinite chain of events disagrees with science"? If you're going to go to the Big Bang, remember that all science says is that scientific inquiry can't look farther back than that. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 20:38, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
:: Science says that entropy increases over time. This itself rules out an infinite chain of events.
:: Also, your edit that the Big Bang somehow replaces the need for God doesn't, because you then have the question of what caused the Big Bang.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:07, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, more accurately, science says that entropy increases over time in a closed system. But this still does not rule out an infinite chain of events: even in a closed system, it's just the case that eventually, any events which happen will be pretty boring, since they'll just be the static almost-but-not-quite-absolute-zero distribution of matter through space.
::: In re: the Big Bang. Remember that the Kalam formulation of the Cosmological Argument says that anything which ''begins to exist'' must have a cause. The Big Bang is an event, not an object. So as it stands, the Kalam argument is inadequate. You are correct, of course, in saying that if it were changed to admit events as well as objects, the Big Bang would need an explanation, but as it is presented (and as it is presented in the given source, Craig's book), this objection stands. This is why I said "further development is possible". [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 14:45, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

::: So... do you have any further objection to the inclusion of my edits? For your reference, the last edit you reverted actually raises a classic problem for omniscience. There are a few ways out, but the problem is worth noting in an article on this topic. The argument goes like this:
::::* If any subject S '''knows''' some proposition ''p'', then ''p'' is true.
::::* An omniscient being knows everything, including the proposition "Philip will have X for lunch tomorrow", where X is whatever you'll actually have for lunch. Let's call it a sandwich.
::::* So it's true that you'll have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow.
::::* But if it's true that you'll have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow, then you cannot choose to have, say, a slice of pizza for lunch tomorrow.
::: This argument seems to show that omniscience (or, at least, knowledge of the future choices of agents) is incompatible with genuine libertarian free will. The most effective response is probably the Leibnizian theodicy, which you can find in sections 13 and 30 of his ''Discourse on Metaphysics'', because that defense also works (as you might guess) against the problem of evil.
::: If I don't hear from you in the next couple of days, I'll assume you've moved on to other discussions and go back to work here. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 21:32, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: "''...science says that entropy increases over time in a closed system''": Which the universe is.
:::: "''But this still does not rule out an infinite chain of events: even in a closed system, it's just the case that eventually, any events which happen will be pretty boring, since they'll just be the static almost-but-not-quite-absolute-zero distribution of matter through space''": First, an infinite chain of events sounds pretty much like a perpetual motion machine, which is one of the very things that the laws of thermodynamics ''does'' rule out. Second, we are not talking about almost-nothing events, but enormous, universe-creating events.
:::: "''...the Kalam formulation of the Cosmological Argument says that anything which begins to exist must have a cause. The Big Bang is an event, not an object.''": Regardless of what a particular formulation of an argument says, events need causes also.
:::: There is a fallacy in your argument about knowledge of the future. What your argument amounts to is the following:
::::* If any subject S '''knows''' some proposition ''p'', then ''p'' is true.
::::* An omniscient being knows everything, including the proposition "Philip will choose to have X for lunch tomorrow", where X is whatever you'll actually have for lunch. Let's call it a sandwich.
::::* So it's true that I'll choose to have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow.
::::* But if it's true that I'll choose to have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow, then I cannot choose to have, say, a slice of pizza for lunch tomorrow.
:::: So the argument is really that in choosing X I cannot choose Y (where X and Y are mutually exclusive). Which is basic logic, not an argument against omniscience.
:::: As for your edits, I wasn't objecting to them in toto, simply because I hadn't thought them through. Rather, I was responding to one point of the argument. If the Big Bang replaces God as the ''direct'' cause of the universe, but God is needed for the Big Bang, it's disingenuous to say that "if the Universe was caused to exist by the Big Bang, there is no need to suppose a Divine cause". And that was my point: proposing the Big Bang is insufficient reason to say that a Divine cause is not required. It just removes the Divine cause one step.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:12, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
::::: Not exactly. The argument is that, if it is ''known'' that you will choose X, then you could not choose Y. It's not an argument against omniscience at all -- it's an argument against the compatibility of omniscience with free will. As I said above, there are various ways around it -- I personally prefer the Leibnizian theodicy -- but it's still a problem that has to be dealt with by anyone who believes in both libertarian free will and an omniscient being. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 03:26, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
::::: And, I should say, you are completely correct. Supposing that the Big Bang caused the Universe just removes the Divine by one step. The point is: that is a step not taken by the Kalam argument; and so the Kalam argument as presented in its most sophisticated form to date is not able to deal with this problem. This is meant to be an encyclopedia; as such it behooves us to deal with only those arguments which have actually been presented in, say, print. The Kalam argument is not sophisticated enough in any current form to deal with the objection I have presented. William Craig (in personal correspondence) has admitted as much, and within the next few years I do not doubt that we will see an updated version of the argument. The problem is a sticky one: if we admit ''events'' into our ontology, we are stuck with (in various areas) some seriously unpalatable results. Craig is more than aware of this (see his piece in Pojman and Rea's ''Philosophy of Religion'' anthology). [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 03:30, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Going back to the big bang, I asked a pyschicist and he said the universe has an age, the only people who try to claim the universe has existed forever are some atheists, but that most atheists agree with the big bang. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 23:56, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
: I fail to see how this is relevant to the arguments at hand. The question is not: "How old is the Universe?"; the question is: "How old could the Universe be?". Since we are making logical arguments here, rather than empirical claims, what some atheists believe or what some theists believe is utterly irrelevant. To which physicist did you speak? At best, that person seems to be misunderstanding the question.
: If you want to get into a credentials fight, I promise I'll win. I would, of course, prefer to win this debate on the merits, but I realize that this is not always possible on the Internet, where I don't have the power to flunk people who aren't paying attention. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 03:26, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Arguments for the existence of God

2008-07-07T07:26:05Z

NosnhoJE: /* Aristotle */ reply yet again

Doesn't the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 1980s miniseries, not the Disneyfied movie) say that once God is proven to exist, He won't? ;)--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 22:15, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, but I'm not sure that would qualify as an argument ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:22, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't think Douglas Adams style theology will fly very far on this site. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:31, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:I don't expect it to. I was trying to make a funny. Apparently, I failed. :(--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 22:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

42. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:33, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:Ah, yes. Except the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything is actually 54...

"Six by nine?"

"Forty-two?!"

"I always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe..."
--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 22:36, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

== Freewill ==

The "God exists because there is freewill" argument can be challenged by quantum mechanics. While it is not necessary, even impossible, to describe fully in an article such as this, it should be pointed out that quantum mechanics, due to the uncertainty principal, allows for freewill without God. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:24, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
: I don't know how the uncertainty principle allows for free will. It allows for ''randomness'', which is certainly different from ''determinism,'' but how does ''randomness'' imply that beings can make free, deliberate choices? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:35, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
::It's up for debate in physics. Before quantum mechanics, physicists claimed that it would be possible, in principal, if you knew all the parameters of every particle in the universe and had enough processing power, to calculate and predict the future - therefore no free will. However, since the advent of quantum mechanics, we now know that we can't know all the parameters of even one particle let alone all of them. Now, of course, our ignorance doesn't necessarily mean that these particles don't have a determined future. But most physicists now believe that the probability in quantum mechanics means that the universe is not deterministic even in principal and so the door remains open for free will as a fundamental aspect of the universe. But as I said, it's still debated. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 14:33, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
::: Agreed ... but I don't understand why the potential existence of ''random'' events implies that people have ''free will.'' If a choice I make is prompted by some random quantum event, it's not ''free'' -- it's partly random, and partly determined, but certainly no ''choice.'' For me to freely ''choose'' something, there must be something ''more'' than randomness and determinism ... there must be some force ... call it a ''soul'' ... that is at least somewhat free of physical causation and randomness, and ''chooses'' things ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
::::This is a controversial topic. However, there are plenty of examples where science attempts to explain how quantum events are used by the brain or consciousness to make choices. This is different to simple randomness. As you say, randomness doesn't imply free will - it simply implies ignorance of measuring techniques or unpredictability. But ideas such as the Quantum Mind, while not a fully formed theory, is an example of how science attempts to classify free will as a natural phenomenon without the need for the supernatural or God. Some theologians have also postulated that natural free will must exist because God would design a natural universe with the capacity for free will - His Creation is, after all, perfect. While naturalistic free will might not be correct, it should be added to your otherwise excellent list of objections. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:18, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
: Very interesting stuff -- thanks for bringing it to the fore. I read a little about Quantum Mind, and I can see how they attempt to use quantum thought to explain ''consciousness'', but I still can't see how they use it to explain ''free will''. I found an interesting article on it here ... http://www.cneuroscience.org/Topics/Will/Quantum_Free_Will.htm ... the authors had a similar reaction to mine:
::"These theoretical physicists show a profound misunderstanding of what free will is. The human will is not a random action, dependent upon quantum uncertainty or a toss of a player's dice. It is the free choice of the human will, as it is determined by the intellect. It is a not a human will determined by the material causality of an instinctual nature. Rather, it is free (whence the term 'free' will) from material causality, and it finds its efficient causality in intellectual self-determination."
: That being said, I think you're right, and arguments about a "naturalistic free will" should be there ... I'll take a stab at it ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:04, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::I think ''my'' key word in all this would be "attempt". Science doesn't explain free will but there is much scientific conjecture that attempts to - Quantum Mind being but one. What they are doing, of course, is applying the scientific method to consciousness/mind/free will/etc. As the supernatural is outside the realm of science, the ''only'' method for investigation they have is the scientific one in the natural universe. Stepping out of that constraint brings science full circle when it used to be called natural philosophy! This means that science can't give us an answer on how (or even if) we have free will - at least not yet - just that the existence of free will doesn't prove the existence of God. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::: I agree with you for the most part ... with one caveat: Your use of the phrase "scientific conjecture." You say science must stay within the constraint of the "natural universe." But I think there's another constraint on science we must take into account -- experiment:)! IMO, the "scientific conjecture" you mention above is an oxymoron. There is science, and there is conjecture, but there's no such thing as a scientific conjecture. A conjecture becomes science when we find a way to test the conjecture, and it passes the test -- and then it's not conjecture anymore -- it's [[falsifiable]] science. Before you can test a proposition, though, it remains only conjecture. Perhaps what you mean is ''materialistic'' conjecture ... meaning conjectures based solely on materialistic causes?
::: I say all this because I think it's important to recognize when "scientists" are out of the realm of science and in the realm of conjecture and philosophy ... where the credibility of "science" doesn't apply, because the rigors of experiment cannot be used and one guess is just as "unscientific" as the next one ... and anytime a scientist (or anyone else for that matter) tells you something he can't experimentally test, he's not acting like a scientist ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, begging your pardon. I actually meant scientific hypothesis rather than conjecture. My bad. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Fun conversation! Thanks for the interesting info on Quantum mind ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:48, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::Indeed. I much prefer conversations like this with, ah, theists, than the "you'll burn in hell" ones I get sometimes. Ideology leaves little for discussion. Your intelligent approach - obviously better informed than mine - is refreshing. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 14:57, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
: Flattered! Seems like when everybody's more interested in learning than in defending themselves, there's very little for anybody to argue about and everybody comes away with more than they arrived with:). [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 17:05, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::Indeed again! Personally I find the last two arguments - free will and consciousness - rather weak. Arguments maybe but certainly not proofs in any meaningful sense. If used to debate with atheists, they can easily be refuted. It makes the case weaker except when there is no debate, i.e. among theists. My edit would be simply to delete those two sections as they detract from the whole article, but that might be controversial. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
==Aristotle==
[[Aristotle]] first of all does prove that an infinite chain of events is impossible. An infinite chain of events disagrees with science. Second of all the cosmological argument is compatible with the God of the Bible, unlike the other editor says, he/she must not be aware that [[Thomas Aquinas]], [[Maimonides]] and others used it to argue that there is a [[God]]. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:23, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

:Where does Aristotle prove that an infinite chain of events is impossible? The argument for the Unmoved Mover is in Metaphysics Lambda (ch. 7), but the claim against an infinite chain of contingent causal interactions is merely presupposed in ch. 6, never actually argued for. If I've missed something, by all means, point me to the source.

: Furthermore, the claim is not that the entity posited by the various forms of the Cosmological Argument is ''incompatible'' with the Christian God, merely that the CA does not go far enough to prove that it ''is'' the Christian God. God certainly is non-contingent, existed at the beginning of the universe, and is sufficient to explain the universe, but those three properties do not add up to all that God is. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 20:33, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also, a note: Of course St. Thomas and many others have used the Cosmological Argument to demonstrate the existence of God. But those authors are fully aware that the Cosmological Argument by itself is not sufficient to prove that the First Cause is the Christian God. There's a lot more work to be done. That's all my edit is saying. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 20:36, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

: Finally, what do you mean by "an infinite chain of events disagrees with science"? If you're going to go to the Big Bang, remember that all science says is that scientific inquiry can't look farther back than that. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 20:38, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
:: Science says that entropy increases over time. This itself rules out an infinite chain of events.
:: Also, your edit that the Big Bang somehow replaces the need for God doesn't, because you then have the question of what caused the Big Bang.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:07, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, more accurately, science says that entropy increases over time in a closed system. But this still does not rule out an infinite chain of events: even in a closed system, it's just the case that eventually, any events which happen will be pretty boring, since they'll just be the static almost-but-not-quite-absolute-zero distribution of matter through space.
::: In re: the Big Bang. Remember that the Kalam formulation of the Cosmological Argument says that anything which ''begins to exist'' must have a cause. The Big Bang is an event, not an object. So as it stands, the Kalam argument is inadequate. You are correct, of course, in saying that if it were changed to admit events as well as objects, the Big Bang would need an explanation, but as it is presented (and as it is presented in the given source, Craig's book), this objection stands. This is why I said "further development is possible". [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 14:45, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

::: So... do you have any further objection to the inclusion of my edits? For your reference, the last edit you reverted actually raises a classic problem for omniscience. There are a few ways out, but the problem is worth noting in an article on this topic. The argument goes like this:
::::* If any subject S '''knows''' some proposition ''p'', then ''p'' is true.
::::* An omniscient being knows everything, including the proposition "Philip will have X for lunch tomorrow", where X is whatever you'll actually have for lunch. Let's call it a sandwich.
::::* So it's true that you'll have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow.
::::* But if it's true that you'll have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow, then you cannot choose to have, say, a slice of pizza for lunch tomorrow.
::: This argument seems to show that omniscience (or, at least, knowledge of the future choices of agents) is incompatible with genuine libertarian free will. The most effective response is probably the Leibnizian theodicy, which you can find in sections 13 and 30 of his ''Discourse on Metaphysics'', because that defense also works (as you might guess) against the problem of evil.
::: If I don't hear from you in the next couple of days, I'll assume you've moved on to other discussions and go back to work here. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 21:32, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: "''...science says that entropy increases over time in a closed system''": Which the universe is.
:::: "''But this still does not rule out an infinite chain of events: even in a closed system, it's just the case that eventually, any events which happen will be pretty boring, since they'll just be the static almost-but-not-quite-absolute-zero distribution of matter through space''": First, an infinite chain of events sounds pretty much like a perpetual motion machine, which is one of the very things that the laws of thermodynamics ''does'' rule out. Second, we are not talking about almost-nothing events, but enormous, universe-creating events.
:::: "''...the Kalam formulation of the Cosmological Argument says that anything which begins to exist must have a cause. The Big Bang is an event, not an object.''": Regardless of what a particular formulation of an argument says, events need causes also.
:::: There is a fallacy in your argument about knowledge of the future. What your argument amounts to is the following:
::::* If any subject S '''knows''' some proposition ''p'', then ''p'' is true.
::::* An omniscient being knows everything, including the proposition "Philip will choose to have X for lunch tomorrow", where X is whatever you'll actually have for lunch. Let's call it a sandwich.
::::* So it's true that I'll choose to have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow.
::::* But if it's true that I'll choose to have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow, then I cannot choose to have, say, a slice of pizza for lunch tomorrow.
:::: So the argument is really that in choosing X I cannot choose Y (where X and Y are mutually exclusive). Which is basic logic, not an argument against omniscience.
:::: As for your edits, I wasn't objecting to them in toto, simply because I hadn't thought them through. Rather, I was responding to one point of the argument. If the Big Bang replaces God as the ''direct'' cause of the universe, but God is needed for the Big Bang, it's disingenuous to say that "if the Universe was caused to exist by the Big Bang, there is no need to suppose a Divine cause". And that was my point: proposing the Big Bang is insufficient reason to say that a Divine cause is not required. It just removes the Divine cause one step.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:12, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
::::: Not exactly. The argument is that, if it is ''known'' that you will choose X, then you could not choose Y. It's not an argument against omniscience at all -- it's an argument against the compatibility of omniscience with free will. As I said above, there are various ways around it -- I personally prefer the Leibnizian theodicy -- but it's still a problem that has to be dealt with by anyone who believes in both libertarian free will and an omniscient being. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 03:26, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Going back to the big bang, I asked a pyschicist and he said the universe has an age, the only people who try to claim the universe has existed forever are some atheists, but that most atheists agree with the big bang. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 23:56, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
: I fail to see how this is relevant to the arguments at hand. The question is not: "How old is the Universe?"; the question is: "How old could the Universe be?". Since we are making logical arguments here, rather than empirical claims, what some atheists believe or what some theists believe is utterly irrelevant. To which physicist did you speak? At best, that person seems to be misunderstanding the question.
: If you want to get into a credentials fight, I promise I'll win. I would, of course, prefer to win this debate on the merits, but I realize that this is not always possible on the Internet, where I don't have the power to flunk people who aren't paying attention. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 03:26, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Arguments for the existence of God

2008-07-07T01:32:18Z

NosnhoJE: /* Aristotle */ reply again

Talk:Arguments for the existence of God

2008-07-05T18:45:36Z

NosnhoJE: /* Aristotle */ reply

Philosophy of Science

2008-07-05T02:42:16Z

NosnhoJE: start expanding stub; more later

The '''philosophy of science''' is that branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of scientific inquiry. In its broadest form, its goal is to answer the question: "What is science?" Its subdisciplines, including [[Philosophy of physics]], [[Philosophy of biology]], [[Philosophy of psychology]], aim to understand and help inform the conceptual underpinnings of their various branches of science.

In no way should '''philosophy of science''' be confused with [[Natural philosophy]]; the latter was the name given to what we would now call "science" through the end of the Enlightenment.

__TOC__

==History==

The philosophy of science comes on the scene following the development of the [[Vienna circle]] of philosophers. Encouraged by the recent successes in many areas of scientific inquiry, some of these philosophers made an effort to codify and define science.

===Verificationism===
Early efforts to codify scientific reasoning center around a principle of '''verification'''. The slogan would go something like this:

"A sentence is scientific if and only if it is verifiable; that is, if there is an empirical observation which can be made that supports that sentence."

Given this definition, the sentence "Hillary Clinton is wearing a pantsuit on 4 July 2008 at 3:55 PM" would be scientific, while the sentence "There is an undetectable unicorn in the yard right now" would not be.

Of course, this definition expands the range of science from the layperson's characterization of Serious Persons in Lab Coats, probably holding clipboards; but it is -- according to [[AJ Ayer]] -- a necessary condition for scientific validity.

====Objections====

An obvious objection is one formulated by [[Karl Popper]]: the doctrine of verificationism cannot be used to disallow theories whose projections are always verifiable. His chosen example is Freudian [[psychoanalysis]]. Popper claims that there is no behavior which cannot be explained by a Freudian theory. Now, on the one hand, this might seem like a good result: surely a theory that predicts everything in its bailiwick is a good theory! But Popper's point is actually more subtle than this: Freudian psychoanalysis predicts ''too much''.

===Falsificationism===

See:
*[[science and philosophy]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:Arguments for the existence of God

2008-07-05T00:38:48Z

NosnhoJE: /* Aristotle */ just noticed this

Talk:Arguments for the existence of God

2008-07-05T00:36:51Z

NosnhoJE: /* Aristotle */

Talk:Arguments for the existence of God

2008-07-05T00:34:39Z

NosnhoJE: /* Aristotle */ typo

Talk:Arguments for the existence of God

2008-07-05T00:33:58Z

NosnhoJE: /* Aristotle */ reply

Arguments for the existence of God

2008-07-05T00:13:55Z

NosnhoJE: /* Leibnizian cosmological argument */ Not all necessary things are eternal; add general objection

'''Arguments for the existence of God''' involve carefully crafted reasoning with the hope that an individual will come to the conclusion that [[God]] exists.

Also known as '''proofs''' for God's existence, these arguments have not always come with full acceptance. Those opposed to [[natural theology]] claim that God's existence cannot be proven by human reason or the natural world, and that any attempt to do so runs the risk of becoming a [[God of the Gaps]] argument. However, [[Oxford]] scholar Roger Penrose states that [[materialism]] is now the faith of the gaps (see: [[Atheism of the gaps]]).<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9511/revessay.html</ref> Viewpoints vary, but responses tend to conclude that God can only be known by supernatural [[special revelation|revelation]] or [[Scripture alone]]. [[Karl Barth]] is a classic example of this as he believed that God is exclusively revealed in [[Jesus Christ]], and Jesus is only revealed in the [[Bible]]. Proponents of natural theology vary as well, but most conclude that the existence of God can be known through human reason although it is not salvific (not a saving knowledge of God). [[Thomas Aquinas]] is characteristic of this view, holding to the understanding that the created world reflects aspects of its creator that are apparent to all. Nonetheless, arguments for the existence of God have been formed throughout [[church history]] and continue to be used today, namely in the area of [[Christian apologetics]].

__TOC__
==Cosmological arguments==
(the "unmade maker")

===Kalam cosmological argument===
The aim of this argument is to show that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. The argument battles against the existence of an infinite, temporal regress of past events which implies a universe that has infinitely existed. This argument implies the existence of a First Cause.

The form of the argument is:
# Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
# The universe began to exist.
# Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Note that the key phrase here is "''begins'' to exist". The question is not "whatever exists".

====Objections====

The traditional counter-argument is to attack premise 2: if we have no reason to believe that the Universe began to exist, then we would have no reason to believe that the Universe has a cause.

The modern advent of [[Big Bang Theory]] makes this line of attack tendentious at best, but opens up an entirely different objection, namely: if the Universe was caused to exist by the Big Bang, there is no need to suppose a Divine cause.

As it stands, the Kalam argument does not adequately establish the existence of God, but further development is possible.

It should also be noted that the Kalam argument is not susceptible to the "Who created God?" objection, as long as God has no beginning. The Bible makes clear that God exists outside of our construct of time in many locations, including 1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2. Whether these claims can be taken literally is itself an interesting question.

===[[Thomism|Thomistic]] cosmological argument===

# Everything we observe in the universe is contingent
# A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite
# The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite
# Therefore, there is a necessary first cause in the sequence of contingent causes

====Objections====
As above in the Kalam form of the cosmological argument, the classic move here is to attack premise 2. Why is it that a contingent causal sequence cannot be infinite? This problem can be traced back to the first extant argument of this form, from [[Aristotle]]'s Metaphysics. Aristotle does not defend the claim that there can be no infinitely-long contingent sequence, and unfortunately, there is no persuasive defense of this claim available.

===Leibnizian cosmological argument===
The argument comes from a German polymath, Gottfriend Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz wrote, "The first question which should rightly be asked is this: why is there something rather than nothing?"

The argument runs as follows:
# Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own [[nature]] or in an external cause.
# If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
# The universe is an existing thing.
# Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

====Objections====

Some [[Atheism|atheists]] object to premise 2 in that God does not have to be the explanation, but that the universe can be what is called a necessary being (one which exists of its own nature and have no external cause). This was a suggestion of [[David Hume]] who demanded, "Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?" (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 9).

A general objection to all forms of the Cosmological Argument is: even if successful, they do not establish anything about the identity of the First Cause ''except'' that the First Cause is non-contingent, existed at the beginning of the universe, and is sufficient to explain the universe's existence. This is a far cry from the attributes assigned to the Christian Deity.

==Teleological argument==
(the "unmoved mover")

Probably the most popular argument for God's existence is the teleological argument. Derived from the Greek word ''telos'', which refers to purpose or end, this argument hinges on the idea that the world gives evidence of being designed, and concludes that a divine designer must be posited to account for the orderly world we encounter. Although the teleological argument dates at least as far back as Plato, it is perhaps most memorable today from the work of [[William Paley]] (1743-1805), in his ''Natural Theology'' (1802). Recently, the teleological argument has gained renewed interest as a core element of the theory of [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] and the related efforts to reconcile science and faith.

Although there are variations, the basic argument goes something like this:

# ''X'' is too complex to have occurred randomly or naturally.
# Therefore, ''X'' must have been created by an intelligent being, ''Y''.
# God is that intelligent being.
# Therefore, God exists.

===Comments on the teleological argument===
'''The first and second premises''' assume that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. This is the same principle that archaeology uses to determine if, for example, a piece of stone is a stone tool.

The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is based on observations that complexity is not the outcome of random processes. Some object that life or objects are described as, “orderly” or “ordered”, and that this implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. These objector claim that a system can be non-random or ordered simply because it is following impersonal physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes. However, such "ordered" systems do not have ''complexity'', which life has.

'''The third premise''' is rejected by some even if the first and second premises are accepted, as the implied designer (Y) might be an unknown force or mere demiurge, not God as God is commonly understood. It is argued in defense that the outside force through which Y came into being might then be explained as a more powerful being resulting in either an omnipotent being or infinite regression.

Critics often argue that the teleological argument would apply to the designer, arguing any designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object. This, they say, would create the absurdity of an infinite series of designers. However, the counter-argument of an "undesigned designer," akin to Aristotle's uncaused causer, is common. Furthermore, it has been argued that God is ''not'' complex, that is, He is not composed of many interrelated parts, so the complexity argument does not apply.

==Anthropological argument==
The anthropological (anthropos meaning "man") argument is made on the basis of the condition of humanity, of mankind's basic moral standards and the thread a search for a higher being. It is related to the cosmological and teleological arguments in that it if man has a yearning for God and a conscience when offending him, ostensibly these have their origin and cause in God and not in man. The argument was perhaps most famously posited by Blaise Pascal, who reasoned that it was better "bet" to believe in God than not to do so.

==Ontological argument==
The ontological argument attempts to prove God's existence through abstract reasoning alone. The argument is entirely a priori, i.e. it involves no empirical evidence at all. Rather, the argument begins with an explication of the concept of God, and seeks to demonstrate that God exists on the basis of that concept alone.
{{cquote|"The argument is ingenious. It has the appearance of a linguistic trick, but it is a difficult task to say precisely what, if anything, is wrong with it. All forms of the argument make some association between three concepts: the concepts of God, of perfection, and of existence. Very roughly, they state that perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence, and so that the concept of God entails God's existence." <ref>http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ontological.html</ref>}}

The ontological argument was first formulated by [[Anselm]] of Canterbury (1033-1109), one of the great medieval philosopher-theologians, in his ''Proslogium'', Chapter 2. Anselm’s ontological argument rests on the identification of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”. Once it is understood that God is that of which no greater can be conceived, Anselm suggests, it becomes evident that God must exist.

A problem with this argument is that it merely defines God into existence. It is unclear if the concept of being able to conceive of a perfect being has any connection to actual existence. Without being able to make this connection, the merit of the argument can become questionable.

===Descartes' ontological argument===
We have the idea of an infinitely perfect Being. Since we are finite, and everything around us is finite, the idea of an infinitely perfect Being could not have originated with us or with the nature around us. Therefore the idea of an infinitely perfect Being must have come from such a being - God. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/</ref>

==Free will argument==

* There can be no free will in a totally naturalistic system
* Free will exists
* Therefore God exists

Oxygen and hydrogen don't 'choose' to combine, they do so due to natural laws. In a naturalistic system every component that makes us up obeys similar natural laws. The concept of freewill or choice would therefore not exist.

=== Objections ===
Some challenge this argument on the basis that premises one and two have not been proven. They argue:
* In challenging premise 1, those ascribing to [[compatibilism]] believe that our experience of free will is still compatible with naturalistic causes even if the mechanism that causes this to be is not yet known and no viable explanation can be postulated apart from acting as if it is so.<ref>"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and '''free will''', are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules ... Free Will is located in or near the anterior cingulate sulcus." Francis Crick, ''The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, NY, 1993, p. 3, 268. </ref> Since this can not be disproven, it is possible that free will exists in a naturalistic system.
* In challenging premise 2, those ascribing to [[determinism]] simply believe that free will does not exist and no one has free will. Therefore there is no importance to the concept of God.

==Consciousness==

* Nature consists of a finite number of elements
* We (our physical bodies) consist of those elements
* The elements themselves in which we consist of, and nature itself, has no consciousness
* Despite our elements themselves not having a conscience, We do have consciousness (in our soul or whatever you want to call it)
* Consciousness can not happen by chance, therefore there must be a being who supply that to us.
* It's not logical to have an infinite regress of beings, therefore we posit a single, uncaused Causer of the conscience
* This uncaused Causer of the conscience is [[God]]

==Resources==
* ''God, Are you There? Five Reasons God Exists and Three Reasons it Makes a Difference'', by [[William Lane Craig]] (from the [http://www.rzim.org RZIM] Critical Questions Booklet Series)
* ''Does God Exist? The Debate between Theists and Atheists'', by [[J.P. Moreland]] (theist) and [[Kai Nielsen]] (atheist). Prometheus Books, 1993.

==See also==
* [[Apologetics]]
* [[Natural theology]]
*[[Atheism]]
* [[Thomas Aquinas]]
* [[God of the Gaps]]

==References==
*''This article is based off the Theopedia.com [http://www.theopedia.com/Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God article] which is in the public domain.''
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.html Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God], by [[Peter Kreeft]] & Ronald K. Tacelli
* [http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/Theisticarguments.html Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]; Lecture presented at the 33rd Annual Philosophy Converence, Wheaton College, Oct 23-25, 1986
* [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/beck-cosmology.html The Cosmological Argument: A Current Bibliographical Appraisal], by W. David Beck
* [http://theologica.blogspot.com/2005/11/evil-as-evidence-for-god.html Evil as Evidence for God], by Justin Taylor
* [http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/page/page/1572404.htm The 4 Primary Arguments for God's Existence], by Michael J. Vlach

===Multimedia===
* [http://biblicaltraining.org/audio/TH503/theology_1_11001.mp3 Theism; Proof of God's existence], by [[Bruce Ware]] (MP3)
* [http://www.veritas.org/mediafiles/Craig%20DoesGodExist%20Fresno.aiff.mp3 Does God Exist?] (MP3), by William Lane Craig
* [http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/topics/17 Existence of God Audio Lectures] (The Veritas Forum)
* [http://www.believerschapeldallas.org/audio/slj-69_systematic-theology/002_SLJ_69_32K.mp3 Is There a Supreme Being?, or the Existence of God] (MP3), by S. Lewis Johnson
* [http://biblicaltraining.org/audio/TH601/apologetics_08c_MSTR.mov Cosmological Argument] (QuickTime), by Ronald Nash
'''ApologeticsPress.org''' (RealPlayer) 
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l05.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part I)
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l06.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part II)
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l07.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part III)

[[Category:Christian Apologetics]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God| ]]
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Arguments for the existence of God

2008-07-05T00:09:06Z

NosnhoJE: /* Thomistic cosmological argument */ Cleanup, add objection.

'''Arguments for the existence of God''' involve carefully crafted reasoning with the hope that an individual will come to the conclusion that [[God]] exists.

Also known as '''proofs''' for God's existence, these arguments have not always come with full acceptance. Those opposed to [[natural theology]] claim that God's existence cannot be proven by human reason or the natural world, and that any attempt to do so runs the risk of becoming a [[God of the Gaps]] argument. However, [[Oxford]] scholar Roger Penrose states that [[materialism]] is now the faith of the gaps (see: [[Atheism of the gaps]]).<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9511/revessay.html</ref> Viewpoints vary, but responses tend to conclude that God can only be known by supernatural [[special revelation|revelation]] or [[Scripture alone]]. [[Karl Barth]] is a classic example of this as he believed that God is exclusively revealed in [[Jesus Christ]], and Jesus is only revealed in the [[Bible]]. Proponents of natural theology vary as well, but most conclude that the existence of God can be known through human reason although it is not salvific (not a saving knowledge of God). [[Thomas Aquinas]] is characteristic of this view, holding to the understanding that the created world reflects aspects of its creator that are apparent to all. Nonetheless, arguments for the existence of God have been formed throughout [[church history]] and continue to be used today, namely in the area of [[Christian apologetics]].

__TOC__
==Cosmological arguments==
(the "unmade maker")

===Kalam cosmological argument===
The aim of this argument is to show that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. The argument battles against the existence of an infinite, temporal regress of past events which implies a universe that has infinitely existed. This argument implies the existence of a First Cause.

The form of the argument is:
# Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
# The universe began to exist.
# Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Note that the key phrase here is "''begins'' to exist". The question is not "whatever exists".

====Objections====

The traditional counter-argument is to attack premise 2: if we have no reason to believe that the Universe began to exist, then we would have no reason to believe that the Universe has a cause.

The modern advent of [[Big Bang Theory]] makes this line of attack tendentious at best, but opens up an entirely different objection, namely: if the Universe was caused to exist by the Big Bang, there is no need to suppose a Divine cause.

As it stands, the Kalam argument does not adequately establish the existence of God, but further development is possible.

It should also be noted that the Kalam argument is not susceptible to the "Who created God?" objection, as long as God has no beginning. The Bible makes clear that God exists outside of our construct of time in many locations, including 1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2. Whether these claims can be taken literally is itself an interesting question.

===[[Thomism|Thomistic]] cosmological argument===

# Everything we observe in the universe is contingent
# A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite
# The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite
# Therefore, there is a necessary first cause in the sequence of contingent causes

====Objections====
As above in the Kalam form of the cosmological argument, the classic move here is to attack premise 2. Why is it that a contingent causal sequence cannot be infinite? This problem can be traced back to the first extant argument of this form, from [[Aristotle]]'s Metaphysics. Aristotle does not defend the claim that there can be no infinitely-long contingent sequence, and unfortunately, there is no persuasive defense of this claim available.

===Leibnizian cosmological argument===
The argument comes from a German polymath, Gottfriend Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz wrote, "The first question which should rightly be asked is this: why is there something rather than nothing?"

The argument runs as follows:
# Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own [[nature]] or in an external cause.
# If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
# The universe is an existing thing.
# Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

Some [[Atheism|atheists]] object to premise 2 in that God does not have to be the explanation, but that the universe can be what is called a necessary being (one which exists of its own nature and have no external cause). This was a suggestion of [[David Hume]] who demanded, "Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?" (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 9).
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is helpful. If Hume (and other atheists) is right in saying that the universe is a necessary being/thing, then this implies that the universe is eternal. This is exactly what the Kalam argument seeks to disprove. Thus, the Kalam is a valuable supplement to the Leibnizian argument.

==Teleological argument==
(the "unmoved mover")

Probably the most popular argument for God's existence is the teleological argument. Derived from the Greek word ''telos'', which refers to purpose or end, this argument hinges on the idea that the world gives evidence of being designed, and concludes that a divine designer must be posited to account for the orderly world we encounter. Although the teleological argument dates at least as far back as Plato, it is perhaps most memorable today from the work of [[William Paley]] (1743-1805), in his ''Natural Theology'' (1802). Recently, the teleological argument has gained renewed interest as a core element of the theory of [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] and the related efforts to reconcile science and faith.

Although there are variations, the basic argument goes something like this:

# ''X'' is too complex to have occurred randomly or naturally.
# Therefore, ''X'' must have been created by an intelligent being, ''Y''.
# God is that intelligent being.
# Therefore, God exists.

===Comments on the teleological argument===
'''The first and second premises''' assume that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. This is the same principle that archaeology uses to determine if, for example, a piece of stone is a stone tool.

The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is based on observations that complexity is not the outcome of random processes. Some object that life or objects are described as, “orderly” or “ordered”, and that this implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. These objector claim that a system can be non-random or ordered simply because it is following impersonal physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes. However, such "ordered" systems do not have ''complexity'', which life has.

'''The third premise''' is rejected by some even if the first and second premises are accepted, as the implied designer (Y) might be an unknown force or mere demiurge, not God as God is commonly understood. It is argued in defense that the outside force through which Y came into being might then be explained as a more powerful being resulting in either an omnipotent being or infinite regression.

Critics often argue that the teleological argument would apply to the designer, arguing any designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object. This, they say, would create the absurdity of an infinite series of designers. However, the counter-argument of an "undesigned designer," akin to Aristotle's uncaused causer, is common. Furthermore, it has been argued that God is ''not'' complex, that is, He is not composed of many interrelated parts, so the complexity argument does not apply.

==Anthropological argument==
The anthropological (anthropos meaning "man") argument is made on the basis of the condition of humanity, of mankind's basic moral standards and the thread a search for a higher being. It is related to the cosmological and teleological arguments in that it if man has a yearning for God and a conscience when offending him, ostensibly these have their origin and cause in God and not in man. The argument was perhaps most famously posited by Blaise Pascal, who reasoned that it was better "bet" to believe in God than not to do so.

==Ontological argument==
The ontological argument attempts to prove God's existence through abstract reasoning alone. The argument is entirely a priori, i.e. it involves no empirical evidence at all. Rather, the argument begins with an explication of the concept of God, and seeks to demonstrate that God exists on the basis of that concept alone.
{{cquote|"The argument is ingenious. It has the appearance of a linguistic trick, but it is a difficult task to say precisely what, if anything, is wrong with it. All forms of the argument make some association between three concepts: the concepts of God, of perfection, and of existence. Very roughly, they state that perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence, and so that the concept of God entails God's existence." <ref>http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ontological.html</ref>}}

The ontological argument was first formulated by [[Anselm]] of Canterbury (1033-1109), one of the great medieval philosopher-theologians, in his ''Proslogium'', Chapter 2. Anselm’s ontological argument rests on the identification of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”. Once it is understood that God is that of which no greater can be conceived, Anselm suggests, it becomes evident that God must exist.

A problem with this argument is that it merely defines God into existence. It is unclear if the concept of being able to conceive of a perfect being has any connection to actual existence. Without being able to make this connection, the merit of the argument can become questionable.

===Descartes' ontological argument===
We have the idea of an infinitely perfect Being. Since we are finite, and everything around us is finite, the idea of an infinitely perfect Being could not have originated with us or with the nature around us. Therefore the idea of an infinitely perfect Being must have come from such a being - God. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/</ref>

==Free will argument==

* There can be no free will in a totally naturalistic system
* Free will exists
* Therefore God exists

Oxygen and hydrogen don't 'choose' to combine, they do so due to natural laws. In a naturalistic system every component that makes us up obeys similar natural laws. The concept of freewill or choice would therefore not exist.

=== Objections ===
Some challenge this argument on the basis that premises one and two have not been proven. They argue:
* In challenging premise 1, those ascribing to [[compatibilism]] believe that our experience of free will is still compatible with naturalistic causes even if the mechanism that causes this to be is not yet known and no viable explanation can be postulated apart from acting as if it is so.<ref>"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and '''free will''', are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules ... Free Will is located in or near the anterior cingulate sulcus." Francis Crick, ''The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, NY, 1993, p. 3, 268. </ref> Since this can not be disproven, it is possible that free will exists in a naturalistic system.
* In challenging premise 2, those ascribing to [[determinism]] simply believe that free will does not exist and no one has free will. Therefore there is no importance to the concept of God.

==Consciousness==

* Nature consists of a finite number of elements
* We (our physical bodies) consist of those elements
* The elements themselves in which we consist of, and nature itself, has no consciousness
* Despite our elements themselves not having a conscience, We do have consciousness (in our soul or whatever you want to call it)
* Consciousness can not happen by chance, therefore there must be a being who supply that to us.
* It's not logical to have an infinite regress of beings, therefore we posit a single, uncaused Causer of the conscience
* This uncaused Causer of the conscience is [[God]]

==Resources==
* ''God, Are you There? Five Reasons God Exists and Three Reasons it Makes a Difference'', by [[William Lane Craig]] (from the [http://www.rzim.org RZIM] Critical Questions Booklet Series)
* ''Does God Exist? The Debate between Theists and Atheists'', by [[J.P. Moreland]] (theist) and [[Kai Nielsen]] (atheist). Prometheus Books, 1993.

==See also==
* [[Apologetics]]
* [[Natural theology]]
*[[Atheism]]
* [[Thomas Aquinas]]
* [[God of the Gaps]]

==References==
*''This article is based off the Theopedia.com [http://www.theopedia.com/Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God article] which is in the public domain.''
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.html Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God], by [[Peter Kreeft]] & Ronald K. Tacelli
* [http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/Theisticarguments.html Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]; Lecture presented at the 33rd Annual Philosophy Converence, Wheaton College, Oct 23-25, 1986
* [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/beck-cosmology.html The Cosmological Argument: A Current Bibliographical Appraisal], by W. David Beck
* [http://theologica.blogspot.com/2005/11/evil-as-evidence-for-god.html Evil as Evidence for God], by Justin Taylor
* [http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/page/page/1572404.htm The 4 Primary Arguments for God's Existence], by Michael J. Vlach

===Multimedia===
* [http://biblicaltraining.org/audio/TH503/theology_1_11001.mp3 Theism; Proof of God's existence], by [[Bruce Ware]] (MP3)
* [http://www.veritas.org/mediafiles/Craig%20DoesGodExist%20Fresno.aiff.mp3 Does God Exist?] (MP3), by William Lane Craig
* [http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/topics/17 Existence of God Audio Lectures] (The Veritas Forum)
* [http://www.believerschapeldallas.org/audio/slj-69_systematic-theology/002_SLJ_69_32K.mp3 Is There a Supreme Being?, or the Existence of God] (MP3), by S. Lewis Johnson
* [http://biblicaltraining.org/audio/TH601/apologetics_08c_MSTR.mov Cosmological Argument] (QuickTime), by Ronald Nash
'''ApologeticsPress.org''' (RealPlayer) 
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l05.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part I)
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l06.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part II)
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l07.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part III)

[[Category:Christian Apologetics]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God| ]]
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Arguments for the existence of God

2008-07-05T00:00:51Z

NosnhoJE: /* Kalam cosmological argument */ cleanup and further development of objections

'''Arguments for the existence of God''' involve carefully crafted reasoning with the hope that an individual will come to the conclusion that [[God]] exists.

Also known as '''proofs''' for God's existence, these arguments have not always come with full acceptance. Those opposed to [[natural theology]] claim that God's existence cannot be proven by human reason or the natural world, and that any attempt to do so runs the risk of becoming a [[God of the Gaps]] argument. However, [[Oxford]] scholar Roger Penrose states that [[materialism]] is now the faith of the gaps (see: [[Atheism of the gaps]]).<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9511/revessay.html</ref> Viewpoints vary, but responses tend to conclude that God can only be known by supernatural [[special revelation|revelation]] or [[Scripture alone]]. [[Karl Barth]] is a classic example of this as he believed that God is exclusively revealed in [[Jesus Christ]], and Jesus is only revealed in the [[Bible]]. Proponents of natural theology vary as well, but most conclude that the existence of God can be known through human reason although it is not salvific (not a saving knowledge of God). [[Thomas Aquinas]] is characteristic of this view, holding to the understanding that the created world reflects aspects of its creator that are apparent to all. Nonetheless, arguments for the existence of God have been formed throughout [[church history]] and continue to be used today, namely in the area of [[Christian apologetics]].

__TOC__
==Cosmological arguments==
(the "unmade maker")

===Kalam cosmological argument===
The aim of this argument is to show that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. The argument battles against the existence of an infinite, temporal regress of past events which implies a universe that has infinitely existed. This argument implies the existence of a First Cause.

The form of the argument is:
# Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
# The universe began to exist.
# Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Note that the key phrase here is "''begins'' to exist". The question is not "whatever exists".

====Objections====

The traditional counter-argument is to attack premise 2: if we have no reason to believe that the Universe began to exist, then we would have no reason to believe that the Universe has a cause.

The modern advent of [[Big Bang Theory]] makes this line of attack tendentious at best, but opens up an entirely different objection, namely: if the Universe was caused to exist by the Big Bang, there is no need to suppose a Divine cause.

As it stands, the Kalam argument does not adequately establish the existence of God, but further development is possible.

It should also be noted that the Kalam argument is not susceptible to the "Who created God?" objection, as long as God has no beginning. The Bible makes clear that God exists outside of our construct of time in many locations, including 1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2. Whether these claims can be taken literally is itself an interesting question.

===[[Thomism|Thomistic]] cosmological argument===
# What we observe in this universe is contingent (i.e. dependent, or conditional)
# A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite
# The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite
Conclusion: There must be a first cause in the sequence of contingent causes

===Leibnizian cosmological argument===
The argument comes from a German polymath, Gottfriend Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz wrote, "The first question which should rightly be asked is this: why is there something rather than nothing?"

The argument runs as follows:
# Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own [[nature]] or in an external cause.
# If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
# The universe is an existing thing.
# Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

Some [[Atheism|atheists]] object to premise 2 in that God does not have to be the explanation, but that the universe can be what is called a necessary being (one which exists of its own nature and have no external cause). This was a suggestion of [[David Hume]] who demanded, "Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?" (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 9).
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is helpful. If Hume (and other atheists) is right in saying that the universe is a necessary being/thing, then this implies that the universe is eternal. This is exactly what the Kalam argument seeks to disprove. Thus, the Kalam is a valuable supplement to the Leibnizian argument.

==Teleological argument==
(the "unmoved mover")

Probably the most popular argument for God's existence is the teleological argument. Derived from the Greek word ''telos'', which refers to purpose or end, this argument hinges on the idea that the world gives evidence of being designed, and concludes that a divine designer must be posited to account for the orderly world we encounter. Although the teleological argument dates at least as far back as Plato, it is perhaps most memorable today from the work of [[William Paley]] (1743-1805), in his ''Natural Theology'' (1802). Recently, the teleological argument has gained renewed interest as a core element of the theory of [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] and the related efforts to reconcile science and faith.

Although there are variations, the basic argument goes something like this:

# ''X'' is too complex to have occurred randomly or naturally.
# Therefore, ''X'' must have been created by an intelligent being, ''Y''.
# God is that intelligent being.
# Therefore, God exists.

===Comments on the teleological argument===
'''The first and second premises''' assume that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. This is the same principle that archaeology uses to determine if, for example, a piece of stone is a stone tool.

The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is based on observations that complexity is not the outcome of random processes. Some object that life or objects are described as, “orderly” or “ordered”, and that this implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. These objector claim that a system can be non-random or ordered simply because it is following impersonal physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes. However, such "ordered" systems do not have ''complexity'', which life has.

'''The third premise''' is rejected by some even if the first and second premises are accepted, as the implied designer (Y) might be an unknown force or mere demiurge, not God as God is commonly understood. It is argued in defense that the outside force through which Y came into being might then be explained as a more powerful being resulting in either an omnipotent being or infinite regression.

Critics often argue that the teleological argument would apply to the designer, arguing any designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object. This, they say, would create the absurdity of an infinite series of designers. However, the counter-argument of an "undesigned designer," akin to Aristotle's uncaused causer, is common. Furthermore, it has been argued that God is ''not'' complex, that is, He is not composed of many interrelated parts, so the complexity argument does not apply.

==Anthropological argument==
The anthropological (anthropos meaning "man") argument is made on the basis of the condition of humanity, of mankind's basic moral standards and the thread a search for a higher being. It is related to the cosmological and teleological arguments in that it if man has a yearning for God and a conscience when offending him, ostensibly these have their origin and cause in God and not in man. The argument was perhaps most famously posited by Blaise Pascal, who reasoned that it was better "bet" to believe in God than not to do so.

==Ontological argument==
The ontological argument attempts to prove God's existence through abstract reasoning alone. The argument is entirely a priori, i.e. it involves no empirical evidence at all. Rather, the argument begins with an explication of the concept of God, and seeks to demonstrate that God exists on the basis of that concept alone.
{{cquote|"The argument is ingenious. It has the appearance of a linguistic trick, but it is a difficult task to say precisely what, if anything, is wrong with it. All forms of the argument make some association between three concepts: the concepts of God, of perfection, and of existence. Very roughly, they state that perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence, and so that the concept of God entails God's existence." <ref>http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ontological.html</ref>}}

The ontological argument was first formulated by [[Anselm]] of Canterbury (1033-1109), one of the great medieval philosopher-theologians, in his ''Proslogium'', Chapter 2. Anselm’s ontological argument rests on the identification of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”. Once it is understood that God is that of which no greater can be conceived, Anselm suggests, it becomes evident that God must exist.

A problem with this argument is that it merely defines God into existence. It is unclear if the concept of being able to conceive of a perfect being has any connection to actual existence. Without being able to make this connection, the merit of the argument can become questionable.

===Descartes' ontological argument===
We have the idea of an infinitely perfect Being. Since we are finite, and everything around us is finite, the idea of an infinitely perfect Being could not have originated with us or with the nature around us. Therefore the idea of an infinitely perfect Being must have come from such a being - God. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/</ref>

==Free will argument==

* There can be no free will in a totally naturalistic system
* Free will exists
* Therefore God exists

Oxygen and hydrogen don't 'choose' to combine, they do so due to natural laws. In a naturalistic system every component that makes us up obeys similar natural laws. The concept of freewill or choice would therefore not exist.

=== Objections ===
Some challenge this argument on the basis that premises one and two have not been proven. They argue:
* In challenging premise 1, those ascribing to [[compatibilism]] believe that our experience of free will is still compatible with naturalistic causes even if the mechanism that causes this to be is not yet known and no viable explanation can be postulated apart from acting as if it is so.<ref>"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and '''free will''', are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules ... Free Will is located in or near the anterior cingulate sulcus." Francis Crick, ''The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, NY, 1993, p. 3, 268. </ref> Since this can not be disproven, it is possible that free will exists in a naturalistic system.
* In challenging premise 2, those ascribing to [[determinism]] simply believe that free will does not exist and no one has free will. Therefore there is no importance to the concept of God.

==Consciousness==

* Nature consists of a finite number of elements
* We (our physical bodies) consist of those elements
* The elements themselves in which we consist of, and nature itself, has no consciousness
* Despite our elements themselves not having a conscience, We do have consciousness (in our soul or whatever you want to call it)
* Consciousness can not happen by chance, therefore there must be a being who supply that to us.
* It's not logical to have an infinite regress of beings, therefore we posit a single, uncaused Causer of the conscience
* This uncaused Causer of the conscience is [[God]]

==Resources==
* ''God, Are you There? Five Reasons God Exists and Three Reasons it Makes a Difference'', by [[William Lane Craig]] (from the [http://www.rzim.org RZIM] Critical Questions Booklet Series)
* ''Does God Exist? The Debate between Theists and Atheists'', by [[J.P. Moreland]] (theist) and [[Kai Nielsen]] (atheist). Prometheus Books, 1993.

==See also==
* [[Apologetics]]
* [[Natural theology]]
*[[Atheism]]
* [[Thomas Aquinas]]
* [[God of the Gaps]]

==References==
*''This article is based off the Theopedia.com [http://www.theopedia.com/Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God article] which is in the public domain.''
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.html Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God], by [[Peter Kreeft]] & Ronald K. Tacelli
* [http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/Theisticarguments.html Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]; Lecture presented at the 33rd Annual Philosophy Converence, Wheaton College, Oct 23-25, 1986
* [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/beck-cosmology.html The Cosmological Argument: A Current Bibliographical Appraisal], by W. David Beck
* [http://theologica.blogspot.com/2005/11/evil-as-evidence-for-god.html Evil as Evidence for God], by Justin Taylor
* [http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/page/page/1572404.htm The 4 Primary Arguments for God's Existence], by Michael J. Vlach

===Multimedia===
* [http://biblicaltraining.org/audio/TH503/theology_1_11001.mp3 Theism; Proof of God's existence], by [[Bruce Ware]] (MP3)
* [http://www.veritas.org/mediafiles/Craig%20DoesGodExist%20Fresno.aiff.mp3 Does God Exist?] (MP3), by William Lane Craig
* [http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/topics/17 Existence of God Audio Lectures] (The Veritas Forum)
* [http://www.believerschapeldallas.org/audio/slj-69_systematic-theology/002_SLJ_69_32K.mp3 Is There a Supreme Being?, or the Existence of God] (MP3), by S. Lewis Johnson
* [http://biblicaltraining.org/audio/TH601/apologetics_08c_MSTR.mov Cosmological Argument] (QuickTime), by Ronald Nash
'''ApologeticsPress.org''' (RealPlayer) 
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l05.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part I)
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l06.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part II)
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l07.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part III)

[[Category:Christian Apologetics]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God| ]]
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:Philosophy

2008-06-04T22:19:48Z

NosnhoJE: question

I'm just trying to make a dent in the [[Special:Wantedpages]], any help on this article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks -[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm working on improving this page and the other pages in the philosophy category. Is anybody a Continental, by chance? [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 02:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Notability? ==

I don't think Niebuhr and Hartshorne are really notable figures in American philosophy, and Mills was a sociologist, not a philosopher. If you want American philosophers of religion in there, the obvious choices should be Plantinga and Hick. But - on that note - "American philosophy" is really limited to Pragmatism (or Peirce's 'pragmaticism', since he hated James), in the 20th century most famously championed by Rorty. Other than that, the meaningful distinction is (as I noted in the top section) the divide between Analytic and "Continental" philosophy. Rawls, for example, is squarely in the Analytic camp, not the American (read: Pragmatic) camp.

: May be my source is not as good as yours, please improve it as it should be. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:31, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm working on it. For reference, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is probably the best overall web resource, but it's more specialist articles and less general information. Most of what I'm adding right is common-knowledge (for professional philosophers, I suppose) but probably needs sourcing for an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, most of my library is still packed from a recent move. I'll improve that as I unpack. Cheers! [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 19:48, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Great work. I just recovered some valuable material. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:41, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

: Nice. My area of expertise is in Analytic philosophy and to a lesser extent German phenomenology, so I'm a bit in the dark with the others. If you concentrate your efforts there, we can probably avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 00:06, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Fine I will try. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 02:10, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

== "Philosophizing" addition ==

Joaquin, got something up. I really don't know if this is OK for the article and would not be surprised or offended if it is taken down. But it was good for me to think through[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 06:04, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:Excellent. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:56, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

: It's certainly an interesting claim, but it looks to me more like a start on an argument than something encyclopedic about philosophy - especially since, even if it's true (which we should talk about sometime), it only applies to some of philosophy's sub-disciplines. It would be exceptionally difficult, for example, to show that the study of ontology arises from pain or disaffectedness... [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 14:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I think it works something like this - ontology, the study of being. One, and I think all of us, becomes aware of the meaning of the subject by its approaching absence. We experience other people dying, ourselves beginning the process, other living things. We wonder what it is like to not be aware, ever, to not exist. We experience angst, some sort of horror perhaps, wishing it were not so, etc. We are aware of other life forms likewise ceasing, At each instance of this we pass further into the contemplation of all things, even things never having had life, in their existence and coming non existence. All the while as we press futher in the commonality and generality of beingness, we seek for the reason for it all commensurate with the multiplicity of the instances seeking the principle of point of commonality to all. We contemplate the ramifications such as the concept of ''time'', all "change" and being into non being is in time. We wonder, can there be change at all if there were no time? We consider time in relation to God. Is He out of time? Is time also a creation of His? Is He related to time or is time itself relative to Him. Is that what it means, at least in part. for God to be eternal? Is this what in means for God to be "o ontos", the Being One? We consider other facets that point to the solution of our original angst or whatever that has brought us (others, the thinking world, the philosophers, theologions) to possible solutions. Is our being not only derivative, but dependently so, capable of being withdrawn but also reestablished, reintroduced? Did the Son of God, becoming incarnate, become subject to the time of his own creating etc? The ramifications we consider help us further in the understanding of our original ontological quest.

And so with other sub-disciplines of philosophy, I think, though I haven't thought them all through.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 00:07, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

: OK. Why do you think that we become aware of the meaning of being by its approaching absence? It seems to me that we become aware of the meaning of being rather by its overwhelming presence; we find ourselves in a world filled with things, and begin to make distinctions between them that have nothing to do with an understanding (even a protounderstanding) of death, or cessation, or anything of the sort.

:I also fail to see how the properties of God are relevant to the philosophical investigation of ontology; that belongs squarely in philosophy of religion. The ontology of artifacts, for example, will turn out to be the same whether God exists or not.

:Finally, I fail to see why this argument is appropriate for an encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with the demonstrable history of philosophical inquiry. Unless you'd like to re-frame it as, say, a Kierkegaardian claim, or something similar. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 16:37, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== History of Philosophy ==

The only person I know who divides the history of philosophy into those four periods is Deely, and his Thomist buddies, who are certainly non-representative of philosophy as a whole. Is there another source here that I should know about? [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 18:19, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Philosophy

2008-06-04T20:37:21Z

NosnhoJE: /* "Philosophizing" addition */ respond to Bert

I'm just trying to make a dent in the [[Special:Wantedpages]], any help on this article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks -[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm working on improving this page and the other pages in the philosophy category. Is anybody a Continental, by chance? [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 02:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Notability? ==

I don't think Niebuhr and Hartshorne are really notable figures in American philosophy, and Mills was a sociologist, not a philosopher. If you want American philosophers of religion in there, the obvious choices should be Plantinga and Hick. But - on that note - "American philosophy" is really limited to Pragmatism (or Peirce's 'pragmaticism', since he hated James), in the 20th century most famously championed by Rorty. Other than that, the meaningful distinction is (as I noted in the top section) the divide between Analytic and "Continental" philosophy. Rawls, for example, is squarely in the Analytic camp, not the American (read: Pragmatic) camp.

: May be my source is not as good as yours, please improve it as it should be. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:31, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm working on it. For reference, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is probably the best overall web resource, but it's more specialist articles and less general information. Most of what I'm adding right is common-knowledge (for professional philosophers, I suppose) but probably needs sourcing for an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, most of my library is still packed from a recent move. I'll improve that as I unpack. Cheers! [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 19:48, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Great work. I just recovered some valuable material. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:41, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

: Nice. My area of expertise is in Analytic philosophy and to a lesser extent German phenomenology, so I'm a bit in the dark with the others. If you concentrate your efforts there, we can probably avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 00:06, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Fine I will try. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 02:10, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

== "Philosophizing" addition ==

Joaquin, got something up. I really don't know if this is OK for the article and would not be surprised or offended if it is taken down. But it was good for me to think through[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 06:04, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:Excellent. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:56, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

: It's certainly an interesting claim, but it looks to me more like a start on an argument than something encyclopedic about philosophy - especially since, even if it's true (which we should talk about sometime), it only applies to some of philosophy's sub-disciplines. It would be exceptionally difficult, for example, to show that the study of ontology arises from pain or disaffectedness... [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 14:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I think it works something like this - ontology, the study of being. One, and I think all of us, becomes aware of the meaning of the subject by its approaching absence. We experience other people dying, ourselves beginning the process, other living things. We wonder what it is like to not be aware, ever, to not exist. We experience angst, some sort of horror perhaps, wishing it were not so, etc. We are aware of other life forms likewise ceasing, At each instance of this we pass further into the contemplation of all things, even things never having had life, in their existence and coming non existence. All the while as we press futher in the commonality and generality of beingness, we seek for the reason for it all commensurate with the multiplicity of the instances seeking the principle of point of commonality to all. We contemplate the ramifications such as the concept of ''time'', all "change" and being into non being is in time. We wonder, can there be change at all if there were no time? We consider time in relation to God. Is He out of time? Is time also a creation of His? Is He related to time or is time itself relative to Him. Is that what it means, at least in part. for God to be eternal? Is this what in means for God to be "o ontos", the Being One? We consider other facets that point to the solution of our original angst or whatever that has brought us (others, the thinking world, the philosophers, theologions) to possible solutions. Is our being not only derivative, but dependently so, capable of being withdrawn but also reestablished, reintroduced? Did the Son of God, becoming incarnate, become subject to the time of his own creating etc? The ramifications we consider help us further in the understanding of our original ontological quest.

And so with other sub-disciplines of philosophy, I think, though I haven't thought them all through.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 00:07, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

: OK. Why do you think that we become aware of the meaning of being by its approaching absence? It seems to me that we become aware of the meaning of being rather by its overwhelming presence; we find ourselves in a world filled with things, and begin to make distinctions between them that have nothing to do with an understanding (even a protounderstanding) of death, or cessation, or anything of the sort.

I also fail to see how the properties of God are relevant to the philosophical investigation of ontology; that belongs squarely in philosophy of religion. The ontology of artifacts, for example, will turn out to be the same whether God exists or not.

Finally, I fail to see why this argument is appropriate for an encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with the demonstrable history of philosophical inquiry. Unless you'd like to re-frame it as, say, a Kierkegaardian claim, or something similar. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 16:37, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Philosophy

2008-06-04T20:27:52Z

NosnhoJE: /* Medieval era */ - naming cleanup

[[Image:Aristotle.gif|thumb|Aristotle]]
'''Philosophy''' (literally 'love of wisdom', from the Ancient Greek word φιλοσοφία (philosophía), which comes from φίλος (phílos) and σοφία (sophía), meaning friend/lover and wisdom respectively) is an academic discipline concerned with the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality. Philosophy progresses according to various methods of rational inquiry.

Philosophy is accurately described as both the first science and the "Queen of the Sciences". Until the late 19th century, what is now called "science" was subsumed under ''Natural Philosophy''.

Philosophy in the West has its origins in Ancient Greece, ca. 600 B.C. After the fall of the Roman Empire, much of Greek philosophy was lost to the West, preserved only in the Arab world until the time of the Crusades and the Moorish conquest of Spain. Contact with Arab philosophers (especially [[al-Ghazali]], who developed a version of the [[Cosmological argument]] and wrote more than 70 books, [[ibn Rushd]], and [[ibn Sina]]) kick-started the largely dormant philosophical tradition in Europe, beginning the "Academic period", which ended with [[Descartes]] and the beginning of the [[Enlightenment]]. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw a major split between [[Analytic philosophy]] (or Anglophone philosophy) and [[Continental philosophy]]. This divide can be traced back to the late 19th century and a split in focus between [[Gottlob Frege]] and the intellectual descendants of [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Friedrich Hegel]].

The main branches of philosophy are [[Metaphysics]], which is (broadly speaking) the study of what-is; [[Ethics]], the study of correct action; [[Logic]], the rules (both formal and informal) of reason; [[Epistemology]], the study of knowledge, and [[Aesthetics]], the study of the nature of beauty and the artistic criteria of judgment. Notable sub-branches include [[Philosophy of Science]], [[Philosophy of language]], [[Philosophy of Religion]], [[Political Philosophy]], and [[Philosophy of mind]].

== Branches of Analytic Philosophy ==

Broadly speaking, there are a number of topics one would expect to fall under the title '''Philosophy''':

*'''[[Logic]]''': The analysis of terms, propositions and the principles of reasoning
*'''[[Metaphysics]]''': The analysis of concepts which transcend physical science, including the [[Philosophy of mind]].
*'''[[Epistemology]]''': The analysis of the nature of knowledge, how we know, and what we can and cannot know.
*'''[[Ethics]]''': The analysis of the nature of [[morality]] and morals, how and why we determine right from wrong.
*'''[[Political Philosophy]]''': The analysis of the nature of the human public sphere, which one may consider the ethics of the way society is arranged.
*'''[[Philosophy of Science]]''': The analysis of scientific concepts and methodology, which concerns itself mostly with the foundations of [[science]], and interdisciplinary areas.
*'''[[Aesthetics]]''': The analysis of the nature and experience of [[art]] and beauty.

== History of Philosophy ==

Conventionally the History of Western Philosophy is divided into four eras: Ancient, Medieval, Modern and Contemporary.

The Ancient era starts with the [[Presocratic Philosophy|Presocratic]] philosophers and goes until the fall of the Roman empire; The Medieval goes until the end of the [[Middle Ages]]; The Modern up to the 20th century, and The Contemporary up to present.

[[Frederick Copleston]], S.J. (April 10, 1907 - February 3, 1994) was a [[Jesuit]] scholar who wrote the highly respected 9 volume History of Philosophy.

=== Greek Philosophy ===
[[Image:Parmenides book.jpg|240px|right]]
Philosophy in the West begins with [[Thales]] of Miletus, who was the first astronomer in recorded history to accurately predict a solar eclipse. The Milesian School founded by Thales included [[Anaxagoras]], [[Anaximander]], and [[Anaximenes]]. It was [[Pythagoras]] (ca. 582 - 504 BC) who first brought Philosophy into connection with practical life; he also gave Philosophy its name "the love of wisdom". Closely related to Milesianis is the work of [[Heraclitus]] of Ephesus. Around the time of Heraclitus, [[Parmenides]] of Elea, with his pupil [[Zeno]], raised some serious objections to the project of [[Milesian philosophy]]. These objections laid the groundwork for [[Socrates]] and his pupil [[Plato]], and [[Aristotle]], as well as the Atomists, [[Democritus]] and [[Leucippus]]. After the Greek philosophical golden age other systems appeared, like [[Cynicism]], [[Stoicism]], [[Epicureanism]] and [[Skepticism]]. At the closing period of Greek philosophy [[Neoplatonism]] was founded by Plotinus of Lycopolis. Parmenides' thoughts influenced Plato and through him, all western philosophy. ''While Plato's dialogues are among the supreme philosophical works of the western tradition, it was Parmenides who established the implicit framework of their debates.'' <ref>[http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9972 Parmenides] by Raymond Tallis</ref>

[[Saint Augustine]] (354-430 A.D.), carrying some traces of Plato, has been of momentous importance in the development of Christian thought.

It was Plato, who made ''idea'' a technical term in philosophy, suggesting a world of abstract ideas [[idealism]]; Aristotle on the contrary, shows the real that dwells in the objects of sense; he thought that the natural world needed to be studied and observed for knowledge to be gained. His theory of act and potentiality, of form and ''matter'', is a new solution of the relations between the permanent and the changing; following the first attempts of the [[Presocratic Philosophy]] that conducted to [[Materialism]], ''Aristotle reproaches the Ionian philosophers in general with attempting to explain the evolution of the world without the Nous (intelligence); he regarded [[Protagoras]], who first introduced a spiritual principle, as a sober man among the inebriated.''
<ref> [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12025c.htm Philosophy] Catholic Encyclopedia. </ref>

Since that age up to present days, ''idealism '' and ''materialism'' have been the two main tendencies in the field of philosophy.

=== Medieval era ===
In the West, until the twelfth century, little was known of Plato and Aristotle, except a few dialogues and some treatises on logic. [[Anselm of Canterbury|St. Anselm]] (1O33-1109) made a first attempt at systematizing [[Scholasticism|Scholastic philosophy]]. Some decades later, the Arabic and Byzantine thinkers entered into relation with Western culture, and affecting a philosophical revival; Al-Ghazali, founder of the Ash'ari school of [[Atomism]], entered [[Europe]] through [[ibn Rushd]]; translations of the ancient authors were made and the philosophical works of [[ibn Sina]] and ibn Rushd became better known. In the thirteenth century important names appeared like: [[Maimonides]], Alexander of Hales (ca. 1185 - 1245), St. Bonaventure, [[Albertus Magnus]], [[Roger Bacon]], [[St. Thomas Aquinas]], and in the following century: William of Occam, Eckhart and [[Nicholas of Cusa]], and later, [[Thomas More]] and Grotius. (cf: [[Ibidem]] Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Classifications of Philosophy in this period are mostly akin to the Platonic division into [[logic]], [[ethics]], and [[physics]].

=== Modern era ===
[[Image:JohnStuartMill.jpg|thumb|[[John Stuart Mill]]]]
The main figures from this era are: [[Thomas Hobbes]], [[Rene Descartes ]], [[Gottfried Leibniz]], [[David Hume]], [[Immanuel Kant]], [[Arthur Schopenhauer]], [[Auguste Comte]], [[John Stuart Mill]], [[Herbert Spencer]] and [[Friedrich Nietzsche]].

Dividing Philosophy Kant, distinguishes [[metaphysics]], [[moral]] philosophy, [[religion]], and [[anthropology]].

The most widely accepted scheme, that which still governs the division of the branches of philosophy is due to [[Christian Wolff]] (1679-1755):

This scheme is as follows:

1. Logic.
2. Speculative Philosophy.
* Ontology, or General Metaphysics.
* Special Metaphysics.
: o Theodicy (the study of God).
: o Cosmology (the study of the World).
: o Psychology (the study of Man).

3. Practical Philosophy.
* Ethics
* Politics
* Economics

(cf: [[Ibidem]])

:::::: ''All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions:''

:::::::::''1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope?'' Immanuel Kant.

=== The Twentieth Century ===

This century has offered a wide diversity of orientations. The best known are the French school of [[Existentialism]], the German study of [[Phenomenology]], the [[Positivism|Positivists]] of the Vienna Circle, and the post-Positivist Analytic movement.

==== Existentialists ====

The earliest existentialist was the Christian philosopher [[Søren Kierkegaard]]. [[Henri Bergsson]] (1859 – 1941), 1927 Nobel Prize in Literature, and [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] (1905 – 1980), philosopher, playwright, and novelist, that was the leading exponent of [[existentialism]], are probably the best-known examples of this School. [[Karl Jaspers]] also in Germany.

==== Phenomenology and Hermeneutics ====

[[Edmund Husserl]] (1859 – 1938) founder of [[phenomenology]], [[Martin Heidegger]] (1889 – 1976), and [[Hans-Georg Gadamer]] (1900-2002) are the core writers here.

==== Logical Positivists ====

The [[Vienna Circle]] philosophers, most notably [[Moritz Schlick]], [[Rudolf Carnap]], [[Herbert Feigl]], [[Kurt Godel]], and [[Otto Neurath]] established a rigorous tradition called "Logical Empiricism", but usually referred to as logical positivism. This tradition, a stricter development of [[Auguste Comte]]'s positivism, is no longer an active research program, unlike [[Existentialism]] and [[Phenomenology]].

==== Structuralism ====

[[Structuralism]] is a theory that uses culturally interconnected signs to reconstruct systems of relationships rather than studying isolated, material things in themselves, with members such as [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] (1857 – 1913), Swiss linguist, Roman Jakobson (1896 – 1982), Russian-American linguist and literary critic, Anthropologist [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]] (1908 – ), French anthropologist, [[Roland Barthes]] (1915 – 1880), French critic, and Michel Foucault (1926 – 1984), French philosopher and historian. Foucault is renowned for historical studies that reveal the sometimes morally disturbing power relations inherent in social practices. <ref> [http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/structuralism Structuralism] </ref>

==== Others ====

The Frankfurt School , a group of researchers associated with the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute of Social Research), founded in 1923 as an autonomous division of the University of Frankfurt; a group of researchers associated with the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute of Social Research), founded in 1923, with members such as [[Theodor Adorno]], Theodor Wiesengrund , Walter Benjamin (1892 – 1940), a German essayist and critic (He is known for his synthesis of eccentric Marxist theory and Jewish messianism) and [[Herbert Marcuse]] (1898 – 1979), U.S.;<ref> [http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Philosophhy Philosophy] </ref> Also, criticism of [[Positivism]] by German [[Jürgen Habermas]] (1929– ), a professor at the University of Frankfurt with the [[Critical Theory]].

Some other important names are: George Edward Moore (1873 – 1958), English philosopher, [[Bertrand Russell]] (1872 – 1970), [[British]] philosopher, [[mathematician]], and social reformer, and [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]] (1889 – 1951), Austrian philosopher.

=== American Philosophy ===

Some scholars have said that American philosophers’ focus on the interconnections of theory and practice, on experience and community, but different concerns and themes have waxed or waned at different times. Through the middle of the 20th century, at least, American philosophers were actively engaged in shaping and reflecting the development of American culture.<ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/american.htm American Philosophy]</ref>

==== Transcendentalism ====
Founded by [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]] (1803 - 1882) who became the most widely known man of letters in America in the 19th century. [[Transcendentalism]], ''of which Emerson was the leading figure, resembled British [[Romanticism]] in its precept that a fundamental continuity exists between man, nature, and God, or the divine... Matter and spirit are not opposed.'' <ref> [http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/emerson.htm Ralph Waldo Emerson] </ref>
==== Pragmatism ====
Main figures are: [[Charles Peirce]] (1839-1914), [[William James]] (1842-1910), [[John Dewey]] (1859-1952), and [[Richard Rorty]] (1931-2007).

==== Philosophy of Religion ====

The best-known American philosopher of religion is without a doubt [[Alvin Plantinga]] (1932- ) at the [[University of Notre Dame]]; also well-known are [[John Hick]] (1922- ), who, though born in England, did much of his work at [[Claremont University]] in southern California, and professor [[William Alston]] (1921- ) working at [[Syracuse University]].

==== Analytic Philosophers ====
[[Image:John Rawls.jpg|thumb|Harvard philosopher John Rawls.]]
America has produced a great many philosophers in the Analytic tradition. A brief list of notables:

* [[W.V.O. Quine]]
* [[Saul Kripke]]
* [[Kit Fine]]
* [[Ted Sider]]
* [[Robert Stalnaker]]
* [[Daniel Dennett]]
* [[John Searle]]
* [[Richard Montague]]
* [[Paul Grice]]

Especially well-known to non-philosophers is [[John Rawls]] (1921 - 2002) (political and moral philosophy) author of ''A Theory of Justice'' (1971), ''Political Liberalism'' (1993), ''The Law of Peoples'' (1999), and ''Justice as Fairness: A Restatement'' (2001).

== Eastern Philosophy ==

[[Eastern Philosophy]] comprises mainly the thought of: [[Zoroastrianism]], [[Buddhism]], [[Hinduism]], [[Confucianism]], [[Taoism]], [[Islamism]] and [[Jainism]]. Some scholars include Babylonian philosophy and Korean philosophy.

==The Genesis of "Philosophizing"==

Paradoxically, the impetus and driving force for philosophizing is not so much love of wisdom, at least, at first, but rather the eradication of frustration, pain, "thwartedness", and incompleteness or unfulfillment - all of which come to our lives in the process of our growth forcing themselves upon our awareness. The reason "why" comes about, first of all, to provide an alleviation or a solution. The "problem of pain" arises because there is actual pain, political philosophy because of the discomfiture of people in their aggregates and groupings and the outworking one with another, philosophy of history because of the need to understand so as not to undergo what has been undergone already, or conversely, to learn, in order to repeat what was deemed good, etc.

As the experiences or facets subsumed under each branch of Philosophy are multitudinous, the "why", that is, the solution or explanation, becomes that which unifies, simplifies in the sense that it points to what is behind it all, and more comprehensive. The "location" of the "why" for much of philosophy has been found either outside the processes and material of discussion, that is the explanatory principal is "transcendent", or found within, that is, the principal is "immanent". An example of the latter sees in the many (transitory) changes before our eyes the one true reality - the one blazing fire and not the tongues of flame, the one river and not the continually different passing waters, the one deity within all the gods, the one Godhead expressed by and within the whole created matter ([[pantheism]]), the eastern Atman is Brahman, where the individual soul is the world soul. A discussion of "causality becomes very much a discussion of manifestation of what is, of "epiphany".

On the other hand, when the explanatory principal is transcendent, that is, outside, "causality" comes to the fore as well as "purpose", " plan", and "intent", and, of course , the Being who is Himself "on the outside" of the creation, God. Even to call God a "He" and not an "it" points to our own value of what we know as ''personality'' and positing the greater fulfillment of this "Outside". Sometimes, there is a fluidity from one to another as in the Philosophy of History, One can see the transition from:

1. the ''transcendent'' Biblical God who intervenes in History and the prophets who produces a ''linear'' understanding of history by proclaiming a future kingdom that could be different than the past, according to how we live, in distinction to the previous ''cyclical '' histories of the ancient Near East.

2. to the linear but ''immanent'' principal of F. Hegel which sees that developing Idea within the matter of History itself, developing according to a thesis, producing its opposite, an antithesis, leading to, in the combination of both, a new reality, a synthesis. This, in turn, leads to the "idea of Progress" but non directed and unguided by any transcendent principle.

3. to the denuded of all Idea and spirit but retaining the linear history as vestige, now Marxism's "mechanistic" principal of Utopian Dialectical Materialism - thesis, antithesis, synthesis of Class struggle. This leads to the "idea of the Inevitable".

"Revelation to" man, such as is provided by the [[God]] declared in the Old and [[New Testament]]s, rather than "manifestation within" man (and all else) is the natural complement for the quest that man sets before himself for the solutions, fulfillments, alleviations, etc, required by his very living, and to which Philosophy addresses itself.

== See also ==

*[[Greek Philosophy]]
*[[Greek philosophers]]
*[[Agnosticism]]
*[[Empiricism]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.friesian.com/history.htm History of Philosophy]
*[http://www.erraticimpact.com/history_index.htm History of Philosophy - Resources]
*[http://www.questia.com/read/100673611 A History of American Philosophy] Book by Herbert W. Schneider.
*[http://www.molloy.edu/sophia/sophia_texts.htm Edited versions of important texts in philosophy.]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Philosophical systems]]

Philosophy

2008-06-04T20:24:56Z

NosnhoJE: /* Positivists */ - clarification about historical relation to Comte

[[Image:Aristotle.gif|thumb|Aristotle]]
'''Philosophy''' (literally 'love of wisdom', from the Ancient Greek word φιλοσοφία (philosophía), which comes from φίλος (phílos) and σοφία (sophía), meaning friend/lover and wisdom respectively) is an academic discipline concerned with the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality. Philosophy progresses according to various methods of rational inquiry.

Philosophy is accurately described as both the first science and the "Queen of the Sciences". Until the late 19th century, what is now called "science" was subsumed under ''Natural Philosophy''.

Philosophy in the West has its origins in Ancient Greece, ca. 600 B.C. After the fall of the Roman Empire, much of Greek philosophy was lost to the West, preserved only in the Arab world until the time of the Crusades and the Moorish conquest of Spain. Contact with Arab philosophers (especially [[al-Ghazali]], who developed a version of the [[Cosmological argument]] and wrote more than 70 books, [[ibn Rushd]], and [[ibn Sina]]) kick-started the largely dormant philosophical tradition in Europe, beginning the "Academic period", which ended with [[Descartes]] and the beginning of the [[Enlightenment]]. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw a major split between [[Analytic philosophy]] (or Anglophone philosophy) and [[Continental philosophy]]. This divide can be traced back to the late 19th century and a split in focus between [[Gottlob Frege]] and the intellectual descendants of [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Friedrich Hegel]].

The main branches of philosophy are [[Metaphysics]], which is (broadly speaking) the study of what-is; [[Ethics]], the study of correct action; [[Logic]], the rules (both formal and informal) of reason; [[Epistemology]], the study of knowledge, and [[Aesthetics]], the study of the nature of beauty and the artistic criteria of judgment. Notable sub-branches include [[Philosophy of Science]], [[Philosophy of language]], [[Philosophy of Religion]], [[Political Philosophy]], and [[Philosophy of mind]].

== Branches of Analytic Philosophy ==

Broadly speaking, there are a number of topics one would expect to fall under the title '''Philosophy''':

*'''[[Logic]]''': The analysis of terms, propositions and the principles of reasoning
*'''[[Metaphysics]]''': The analysis of concepts which transcend physical science, including the [[Philosophy of mind]].
*'''[[Epistemology]]''': The analysis of the nature of knowledge, how we know, and what we can and cannot know.
*'''[[Ethics]]''': The analysis of the nature of [[morality]] and morals, how and why we determine right from wrong.
*'''[[Political Philosophy]]''': The analysis of the nature of the human public sphere, which one may consider the ethics of the way society is arranged.
*'''[[Philosophy of Science]]''': The analysis of scientific concepts and methodology, which concerns itself mostly with the foundations of [[science]], and interdisciplinary areas.
*'''[[Aesthetics]]''': The analysis of the nature and experience of [[art]] and beauty.

== History of Philosophy ==

Conventionally the History of Western Philosophy is divided into four eras: Ancient, Medieval, Modern and Contemporary.

The Ancient era starts with the [[Presocratic Philosophy|Presocratic]] philosophers and goes until the fall of the Roman empire; The Medieval goes until the end of the [[Middle Ages]]; The Modern up to the 20th century, and The Contemporary up to present.

[[Frederick Copleston]], S.J. (April 10, 1907 - February 3, 1994) was a [[Jesuit]] scholar who wrote the highly respected 9 volume History of Philosophy.

=== Greek Philosophy ===
[[Image:Parmenides book.jpg|240px|right]]
Philosophy in the West begins with [[Thales]] of Miletus, who was the first astronomer in recorded history to accurately predict a solar eclipse. The Milesian School founded by Thales included [[Anaxagoras]], [[Anaximander]], and [[Anaximenes]]. It was [[Pythagoras]] (ca. 582 - 504 BC) who first brought Philosophy into connection with practical life; he also gave Philosophy its name "the love of wisdom". Closely related to Milesianis is the work of [[Heraclitus]] of Ephesus. Around the time of Heraclitus, [[Parmenides]] of Elea, with his pupil [[Zeno]], raised some serious objections to the project of [[Milesian philosophy]]. These objections laid the groundwork for [[Socrates]] and his pupil [[Plato]], and [[Aristotle]], as well as the Atomists, [[Democritus]] and [[Leucippus]]. After the Greek philosophical golden age other systems appeared, like [[Cynicism]], [[Stoicism]], [[Epicureanism]] and [[Skepticism]]. At the closing period of Greek philosophy [[Neoplatonism]] was founded by Plotinus of Lycopolis. Parmenides' thoughts influenced Plato and through him, all western philosophy. ''While Plato's dialogues are among the supreme philosophical works of the western tradition, it was Parmenides who established the implicit framework of their debates.'' <ref>[http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9972 Parmenides] by Raymond Tallis</ref>

[[Saint Augustine]] (354-430 A.D.), carrying some traces of Plato, has been of momentous importance in the development of Christian thought.

It was Plato, who made ''idea'' a technical term in philosophy, suggesting a world of abstract ideas [[idealism]]; Aristotle on the contrary, shows the real that dwells in the objects of sense; he thought that the natural world needed to be studied and observed for knowledge to be gained. His theory of act and potentiality, of form and ''matter'', is a new solution of the relations between the permanent and the changing; following the first attempts of the [[Presocratic Philosophy]] that conducted to [[Materialism]], ''Aristotle reproaches the Ionian philosophers in general with attempting to explain the evolution of the world without the Nous (intelligence); he regarded [[Protagoras]], who first introduced a spiritual principle, as a sober man among the inebriated.''
<ref> [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12025c.htm Philosophy] Catholic Encyclopedia. </ref>

Since that age up to present days, ''idealism '' and ''materialism'' have been the two main tendencies in the field of philosophy.

=== Medieval era ===
In the West, until the twelfth century, little was known of Plato and Aristotle, except a few dialogues and some treatises on logic. [[Anselm of Canterbury|St. Anselm]] (1O33-1109) made a first attempt at systematizing [[Scholasticism|Scholastic philosophy]]. Some decades later, the Arabic and Byzantine thinkers entered into relation with Western culture, and affecting a philosophical revival; Al-Ghazali, founder of the Ash'ari school of [[Atomism]], entered [[Europe]] through [[Averroes]]; translations of the ancient authors were made and the philosophical works of [[Avicenna]] and Averroes became better known. In the thirteenth century important names appeared like: [[Maimonides]], Alexander of Hales (ca. 1185 - 1245), St. Bonaventure, [[Albertus Magnus]], [[Roger Bacon]], [[St. Thomas Aquinas]], and in the following century: William of Occam, Eckhart and [[Nicholas of Cusa]], and later, [[Thomas More]] and Grotius. (cf: [[Ibidem]] Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Classifications of Philosophy in this period are mostly akin to the Platonic division into [[logic]], [[ethics]], and [[physics]].

=== Modern era ===
[[Image:JohnStuartMill.jpg|thumb|[[John Stuart Mill]]]]
The main figures from this era are: [[Thomas Hobbes]], [[Rene Descartes ]], [[Gottfried Leibniz]], [[David Hume]], [[Immanuel Kant]], [[Arthur Schopenhauer]], [[Auguste Comte]], [[John Stuart Mill]], [[Herbert Spencer]] and [[Friedrich Nietzsche]].

Dividing Philosophy Kant, distinguishes [[metaphysics]], [[moral]] philosophy, [[religion]], and [[anthropology]].

The most widely accepted scheme, that which still governs the division of the branches of philosophy is due to [[Christian Wolff]] (1679-1755):

This scheme is as follows:

1. Logic.
2. Speculative Philosophy.
* Ontology, or General Metaphysics.
* Special Metaphysics.
: o Theodicy (the study of God).
: o Cosmology (the study of the World).
: o Psychology (the study of Man).

3. Practical Philosophy.
* Ethics
* Politics
* Economics

(cf: [[Ibidem]])

:::::: ''All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions:''

:::::::::''1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope?'' Immanuel Kant.

=== The Twentieth Century ===

This century has offered a wide diversity of orientations. The best known are the French school of [[Existentialism]], the German study of [[Phenomenology]], the [[Positivism|Positivists]] of the Vienna Circle, and the post-Positivist Analytic movement.

==== Existentialists ====

The earliest existentialist was the Christian philosopher [[Søren Kierkegaard]]. [[Henri Bergsson]] (1859 – 1941), 1927 Nobel Prize in Literature, and [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] (1905 – 1980), philosopher, playwright, and novelist, that was the leading exponent of [[existentialism]], are probably the best-known examples of this School. [[Karl Jaspers]] also in Germany.

==== Phenomenology and Hermeneutics ====

[[Edmund Husserl]] (1859 – 1938) founder of [[phenomenology]], [[Martin Heidegger]] (1889 – 1976), and [[Hans-Georg Gadamer]] (1900-2002) are the core writers here.

==== Logical Positivists ====

The [[Vienna Circle]] philosophers, most notably [[Moritz Schlick]], [[Rudolf Carnap]], [[Herbert Feigl]], [[Kurt Godel]], and [[Otto Neurath]] established a rigorous tradition called "Logical Empiricism", but usually referred to as logical positivism. This tradition, a stricter development of [[Auguste Comte]]'s positivism, is no longer an active research program, unlike [[Existentialism]] and [[Phenomenology]].

==== Structuralism ====

[[Structuralism]] is a theory that uses culturally interconnected signs to reconstruct systems of relationships rather than studying isolated, material things in themselves, with members such as [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] (1857 – 1913), Swiss linguist, Roman Jakobson (1896 – 1982), Russian-American linguist and literary critic, Anthropologist [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]] (1908 – ), French anthropologist, [[Roland Barthes]] (1915 – 1880), French critic, and Michel Foucault (1926 – 1984), French philosopher and historian. Foucault is renowned for historical studies that reveal the sometimes morally disturbing power relations inherent in social practices. <ref> [http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/structuralism Structuralism] </ref>

==== Others ====

The Frankfurt School , a group of researchers associated with the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute of Social Research), founded in 1923 as an autonomous division of the University of Frankfurt; a group of researchers associated with the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute of Social Research), founded in 1923, with members such as [[Theodor Adorno]], Theodor Wiesengrund , Walter Benjamin (1892 – 1940), a German essayist and critic (He is known for his synthesis of eccentric Marxist theory and Jewish messianism) and [[Herbert Marcuse]] (1898 – 1979), U.S.;<ref> [http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Philosophhy Philosophy] </ref> Also, criticism of [[Positivism]] by German [[Jürgen Habermas]] (1929– ), a professor at the University of Frankfurt with the [[Critical Theory]].

Some other important names are: George Edward Moore (1873 – 1958), English philosopher, [[Bertrand Russell]] (1872 – 1970), [[British]] philosopher, [[mathematician]], and social reformer, and [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]] (1889 – 1951), Austrian philosopher.

=== American Philosophy ===

Some scholars have said that American philosophers’ focus on the interconnections of theory and practice, on experience and community, but different concerns and themes have waxed or waned at different times. Through the middle of the 20th century, at least, American philosophers were actively engaged in shaping and reflecting the development of American culture.<ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/american.htm American Philosophy]</ref>

==== Transcendentalism ====
Founded by [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]] (1803 - 1882) who became the most widely known man of letters in America in the 19th century. [[Transcendentalism]], ''of which Emerson was the leading figure, resembled British [[Romanticism]] in its precept that a fundamental continuity exists between man, nature, and God, or the divine... Matter and spirit are not opposed.'' <ref> [http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/emerson.htm Ralph Waldo Emerson] </ref>
==== Pragmatism ====
Main figures are: [[Charles Peirce]] (1839-1914), [[William James]] (1842-1910), [[John Dewey]] (1859-1952), and [[Richard Rorty]] (1931-2007).

==== Philosophy of Religion ====

The best-known American philosopher of religion is without a doubt [[Alvin Plantinga]] (1932- ) at the [[University of Notre Dame]]; also well-known are [[John Hick]] (1922- ), who, though born in England, did much of his work at [[Claremont University]] in southern California, and professor [[William Alston]] (1921- ) working at [[Syracuse University]].

==== Analytic Philosophers ====
[[Image:John Rawls.jpg|thumb|Harvard philosopher John Rawls.]]
America has produced a great many philosophers in the Analytic tradition. A brief list of notables:

* [[W.V.O. Quine]]
* [[Saul Kripke]]
* [[Kit Fine]]
* [[Ted Sider]]
* [[Robert Stalnaker]]
* [[Daniel Dennett]]
* [[John Searle]]
* [[Richard Montague]]
* [[Paul Grice]]

Especially well-known to non-philosophers is [[John Rawls]] (1921 - 2002) (political and moral philosophy) author of ''A Theory of Justice'' (1971), ''Political Liberalism'' (1993), ''The Law of Peoples'' (1999), and ''Justice as Fairness: A Restatement'' (2001).

== Eastern Philosophy ==

[[Eastern Philosophy]] comprises mainly the thought of: [[Zoroastrianism]], [[Buddhism]], [[Hinduism]], [[Confucianism]], [[Taoism]], [[Islamism]] and [[Jainism]]. Some scholars include Babylonian philosophy and Korean philosophy.

==The Genesis of "Philosophizing"==

Paradoxically, the impetus and driving force for philosophizing is not so much love of wisdom, at least, at first, but rather the eradication of frustration, pain, "thwartedness", and incompleteness or unfulfillment - all of which come to our lives in the process of our growth forcing themselves upon our awareness. The reason "why" comes about, first of all, to provide an alleviation or a solution. The "problem of pain" arises because there is actual pain, political philosophy because of the discomfiture of people in their aggregates and groupings and the outworking one with another, philosophy of history because of the need to understand so as not to undergo what has been undergone already, or conversely, to learn, in order to repeat what was deemed good, etc.

As the experiences or facets subsumed under each branch of Philosophy are multitudinous, the "why", that is, the solution or explanation, becomes that which unifies, simplifies in the sense that it points to what is behind it all, and more comprehensive. The "location" of the "why" for much of philosophy has been found either outside the processes and material of discussion, that is the explanatory principal is "transcendent", or found within, that is, the principal is "immanent". An example of the latter sees in the many (transitory) changes before our eyes the one true reality - the one blazing fire and not the tongues of flame, the one river and not the continually different passing waters, the one deity within all the gods, the one Godhead expressed by and within the whole created matter ([[pantheism]]), the eastern Atman is Brahman, where the individual soul is the world soul. A discussion of "causality becomes very much a discussion of manifestation of what is, of "epiphany".

On the other hand, when the explanatory principal is transcendent, that is, outside, "causality" comes to the fore as well as "purpose", " plan", and "intent", and, of course , the Being who is Himself "on the outside" of the creation, God. Even to call God a "He" and not an "it" points to our own value of what we know as ''personality'' and positing the greater fulfillment of this "Outside". Sometimes, there is a fluidity from one to another as in the Philosophy of History, One can see the transition from:

1. the ''transcendent'' Biblical God who intervenes in History and the prophets who produces a ''linear'' understanding of history by proclaiming a future kingdom that could be different than the past, according to how we live, in distinction to the previous ''cyclical '' histories of the ancient Near East.

2. to the linear but ''immanent'' principal of F. Hegel which sees that developing Idea within the matter of History itself, developing according to a thesis, producing its opposite, an antithesis, leading to, in the combination of both, a new reality, a synthesis. This, in turn, leads to the "idea of Progress" but non directed and unguided by any transcendent principle.

3. to the denuded of all Idea and spirit but retaining the linear history as vestige, now Marxism's "mechanistic" principal of Utopian Dialectical Materialism - thesis, antithesis, synthesis of Class struggle. This leads to the "idea of the Inevitable".

"Revelation to" man, such as is provided by the [[God]] declared in the Old and [[New Testament]]s, rather than "manifestation within" man (and all else) is the natural complement for the quest that man sets before himself for the solutions, fulfillments, alleviations, etc, required by his very living, and to which Philosophy addresses itself.

== See also ==

*[[Greek Philosophy]]
*[[Greek philosophers]]
*[[Agnosticism]]
*[[Empiricism]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.friesian.com/history.htm History of Philosophy]
*[http://www.erraticimpact.com/history_index.htm History of Philosophy - Resources]
*[http://www.questia.com/read/100673611 A History of American Philosophy] Book by Herbert W. Schneider.
*[http://www.molloy.edu/sophia/sophia_texts.htm Edited versions of important texts in philosophy.]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Philosophical systems]]

Talk:Philosophy

2008-05-24T18:26:48Z

NosnhoJE:

Talk:Philosophy

2008-05-24T04:06:04Z

NosnhoJE: -

Philosophy

2008-05-24T00:06:58Z

NosnhoJE: Whitehead was a Brit - removed from list of American philosophers

Philosophy

2008-05-24T00:03:23Z

NosnhoJE: cleanup

Talk:Philosophy

2008-05-23T23:48:29Z

NosnhoJE:

Philosophy

2008-05-23T23:45:46Z

NosnhoJE: Fix errors in history

Talk:Philosophy

2008-05-23T20:07:28Z

NosnhoJE: American philosophers?

Philosophy

2008-05-23T04:10:10Z

NosnhoJE: add phil religion to list

'''Philosophy''' (literally 'love of wisdom', from the Ancient Greek word φιλοσοφία (philosophía), which comes from φίλος (phílos) and σοφία (sophía), meaning friend/lover and wisdom respectively) is an academic discipline concerned with the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality. Philosophy progresses according to various methods of rational inquiry.

Philosophy is accurately described as both the first science and the "Queen of the Sciences". Until the late 19th century, what is now called "science" was subsumed under ''Natural Philosophy''.

Philosophy in the West has its origins in Ancient Greece, but there is an important divide between [[Analytic philosophy]] (or "Anglophone philosophy") and [[Continental philosophy]]. This divide can be traced back to the late 19th century and a split in focus between [[Gottlob Frege]] and the intellectual descendants of [[Friedrich Hegel]].

The main branches of philosophy are [[Metaphysics]], which is (broadly speaking) the study of what-is; [[Ethics]], the study of correct action; [[Logic]], the rules (both formal and informal) of reason; and [[Epistemology]], the study of knowledge. Notable sub-branches include [[Philosophy of Science]], [[Philosophy of language]], [[Philosophy of Religion]], [[Political Philosophy]], and [[Philosophy of mind]].

== Branches of Analytic Philosophy ==

Broadly speaking, there are a number of topics one would expect to fall under the title '''Philosophy''':

*'''[[Logic]]''': The analysis of terms, propositions and the principles of reasoning
*'''[[Metaphysics]]''': The analysis of concepts which transcend physical science, including the [[Philosophy of mind]].
*'''[[Epistemology]]''': The analysis of the nature of knowledge, how we know, and what we can and cannot know.
*'''[[Ethics]]''': The analysis of the nature of [[morality]] and morals, how and why we determine right from wrong.
*'''[[Political Philosophy]]''': The analysis of the nature of the human public sphere, which one may consider the ethics of the way society is arranged.
*'''[[Philosophy of Science]]''': The analysis of scientific concepts and methodology, which concerns itself mostly with the foundations of [[science]], and interdisciplinary areas.
*'''[[Aesthetics]]''': The analysis of the nature and experience of [[art]] and beauty.

== Brief History ==

Philosophy in the West begins with [[Thales]] of Miletus, who was the first astronomer in recorded history to accurately predict a solar eclipse. The Milesian School founded by Thales included [[Anaxagoras]], [[Anaximander]], and [[Anaximenes]]. Closely related is the work of [[Heraclitus]] of Ephesus. Around the time of Heraclitus, [[Parmenides]] of Elea, with his pupil [[Zeno]], raised some serious objections to the project of [[Milesian philosophy]]. These objections laid the groundwork for [[Socrates]] and his pupil [[Plato]], as well as the Atomists, [[Democritus]] and [[Leucippus]].

== See also ==

*[[Greek Philosophy]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Logic

2008-05-14T21:02:55Z

NosnhoJE: expand history; remove irrelevant material; still needs expansion and cleanup.

[[Logic]] ([[Greek]] λογίζω I reckon, I count, from λόγος a word) is a branch of [[philosophy]] that deals with and attempts to guide the faculty of human reason.

[[Aristotle]] was the first to formalize the practice of reasoning. In particular, Aristotle developed a formalization of the [[syllogism]] and the [[Square of Opposition]]. While [[Modus ponens]] and its complement [[Modus tollens]] were known to the Medievals, it is not clear when these central laws of deduction were first formalized.{{fact}}

The next easily-identifiable major development in logic comes from [[Boole]] in 1847 with the creation of [[Boolean algebra]]. In the 1870's, Peirce introduces a logic of quantifiers, followed by [[Gottlob Frege]]'s 1879 ''Begriffsschift'', which contains the first complete formalization of the propositional calculus. Frege's work was developed in service of his [[logicism|logicist]] project, which was shown to be inconsistent by [[Bertrand Russell]] in 1903 with what is famously called [[Russell's paradox]].

By the 1950's, with the work of many logicians including [[Hilbert]], [[Emile Post]], [[Alfred Tarski]] and [[Kurt Goedel]], most of the major results in first-order logic had been proved, and in the 1960's [[Saul Kripke]] added a completeness proof for [[modal logic]].

Most logical systems are [[bivalent]]; that is, they admit only two truth-values. However, there is a fair amount of work done on non-bivalent systems of logic, especially [[intuitionist logic]] and [[relevance logic]]. In intuitionist logic, "true" and "false" are replaced with "proven true", "proven contradictory", and "not proven". In relevance logic, "neither true nor false" and "both true and false" are added to the standard two truth values. There is some debate about the value of these systems in philosophical circles, and [[Timothy Williamson]] claims to have a proof that any non-bivalent logic can be converted into a bivalent logic.

Formal logic requires, since Frege, a distinction between the [[object language]] and the [[metalanguage]]. The metalanguage is ordinarily a natural language like English or German, while the object language is a symbolic language with a limited alphabet and syntax.

== Informal Logic ==

The art of [[rhetoric]] is sometimes called "informal logic", and the classic [[logical fallacies|fallacies]] are often described as "logical fallacies", though, strictly speaking, most of them are simply emotionally effective ways to build an invalid argument. Generally speaking, "informal logic" consists of "common sense" and a collection of other rather loose rules that people employ while making most decisions and even in debate. It is unstructured, and depends largely on one's view of "the reasonable". The thresholds of what is "reasonable" and what is not, are inexact and subject to change with the receipt of sufficient contrary evidence--and again, what constitutes "sufficiency" in this context might vary from person to person.

== Deduction and Induction ==

Deductive logic is characterized by certainty: in a valid argument, when the premises are true, the conclusion '''must''' be true. Inductive logic is famously less certain; in a good inductive argument, even when the premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false. [[David Hume]]'s 18th-century critique of induction remains a very pressing problem for disciplines like [[science]] which rely on inductive reasoning.

== Uses of logic in other disciplines ==
Logic is a necessary discipline in [[philosophy]], because it deals with how we study and interact with the world and with other people in it. Logic and [[mathematics]] are also closely connected, and much of mathematics can be reduced to first-order logic, though Goedel's [[Incompleteness theorem]] shows that not all of mathematics can be so reduced.

In [[computer science]], logic dictates how a machine will follow a set of instructions, including how to test its "world," evaluate it, and act according to that evaluation. Every computer language includes its own version of the language of symbolic logic, except that instead of establishing propositions, a computer following a program is usually choosing between and among different commands to execute.

Logic, and especially formal logic, inform the discipline of [[critical thinking]]--which, by no coincidence, takes its name from the [[Greek]] word for a judge. Indeed, judges and juries in courts of [[law]] must apply logic, both formal and informal, to arrive at their decisions. Formal logic will usually serve to state what obedience to a given body of law requires; informal logic must usually serve a trier of fact charged with deciding whether a given person was in obedience or in violation. The latter principle holds primarily because plaintiff and defendant in a court of law quite often ''do not'' agree on matters of fact.

== See Also ==
* [[Aristotle]], "Organon"
* [[Gottlob Frege]], "Begriffsschrift"
* [[Gottlob Frege]], "The Foundations of Arithmetic"
* [[Bertrand Russell]] and [[Albert N Whitehead]], "Principia Mathematica"
* [[Bas van Fraassen]] and [[J C Beall]], "Possibility and Paradox"
* Geoffrey Hunter, "Metalogic"

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Philosophy

2008-05-14T06:28:42Z

NosnhoJE: had a title backwards -oops!

'''Philosophy''' (literally 'love of wisdom', from the Ancient Greek word φιλοσοφία (philosophía), which comes from φίλος (phílos) and σοφία (sophía), meaning friend/lover and wisdom respectively) is an academic discipline concerned with the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality. Philosophy progresses according to various methods of rational inquiry.

Philosophy is accurately described as both the first science and the "Queen of the Sciences". Until the late 19th century, what is now called "science" was subsumed under ''Natural Philosophy''.

Philosophy in the West has its origins in Ancient Greece, but there is an important divide between [[Analytic philosophy]] (or "Anglophone philosophy") and [[Continental philosophy]]. This divide can be traced back to the late 19th century and a split in focus between [[Gottlob Frege]] and the intellectual descendants of [[Friedrich Hegel]].

The main branches of philosophy are [[Metaphysics]], which is (broadly speaking) the study of what-is; [[Ethics]], the study of correct action; [[Logic]], the rules (both formal and informal) of reason; and [[Epistemology]], the study of knowledge. Notable sub-branches include [[Philosophy of Science]], [[Philosophy of language]], [[Political Philosophy]], and [[Philosophy of mind]].

== Branches of Analytic Philosophy ==

Broadly speaking, there are a number of topics one would expect to fall under the title '''Philosophy''':

*'''[[Logic]]''': The analysis of terms, propositions and the principles of reasoning
*'''[[Metaphysics]]''': The analysis of concepts which transcend physical science, including the [[Philosophy of mind]].
*'''[[Epistemology]]''': The analysis of the nature of knowledge, how we know, and what we can and cannot know.
*'''[[Ethics]]''': The analysis of the nature of [[morality]] and morals, how and why we determine right from wrong.
*'''[[Political Philosophy]]''': The analysis of the nature of the human public sphere, which one may consider the ethics of the way society is arranged.
*'''[[Philosophy of Science]]''': The analysis of scientific concepts and methodology, which concerns itself mostly with the foundations of [[science]], and interdisciplinary areas.
*'''[[Aesthetics]]''': The analysis of the nature and experience of [[art]] and beauty.

== Brief History ==

Philosophy in the West begins with [[Thales]] of Miletus, who was the first astronomer in recorded history to accurately predict a solar eclipse. The Milesian School founded by Thales included [[Anaxagoras]], [[Anaximander]], and [[Anaximenes]]. Closely related is the work of [[Heraclitus]] of Ephesus. Around the time of Heraclitus, [[Parmenides]] of Elea, with his pupil [[Xeno]], raised some serious objections to the project of [[Milesian philosophy]]. These objections laid the groundwork for [[Socrates]] and his pupil [[Plato]], as well as the Atomists, [[Democritus]] and [[Leucippus]].

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Philosophy

2008-05-14T06:27:54Z

NosnhoJE: cleanup

'''Philosophy''' (literally 'love of wisdom', from the Ancient Greek word φιλοσοφία (philosophía), which comes from φίλος (phílos) and σοφία (sophía), meaning friend/lover and wisdom respectively) is an academic discipline concerned with the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality. Philosophy progresses according to various methods of rational inquiry.

Philosophy is accurately described as both the first science and the "Queen of the Sciences". Until the late 19th century, what is now called "science" was subsumed under ''Natural Philosophy''.

Philosophy in the West has its origins in Ancient Greece, but there is an important divide between [[Analytic philosophy|Anglophone]] (or "Analytic") philosophy and [[Continental philosophy]]. This divide can be traced back to the late 19th century and a split in focus between [[Gottlob Frege]] and the intellectual descendants of [[Friedrich Hegel]].

The main branches of philosophy are [[Metaphysics]], which is (broadly speaking) the study of what-is; [[Ethics]], the study of correct action; [[Logic]], the rules (both formal and informal) of reason; and [[Epistemology]], the study of knowledge. Notable sub-branches include [[Philosophy of Science]], [[Philosophy of language]], [[Political Philosophy]], and [[Philosophy of mind]].

== Branches of Analytic Philosophy ==

Broadly speaking, there are a number of topics one would expect to fall under the title '''Philosophy''':

*'''[[Logic]]''': The analysis of terms, propositions and the principles of reasoning
*'''[[Metaphysics]]''': The analysis of concepts which transcend physical science, including the [[Philosophy of mind]].
*'''[[Epistemology]]''': The analysis of the nature of knowledge, how we know, and what we can and cannot know.
*'''[[Ethics]]''': The analysis of the nature of [[morality]] and morals, how and why we determine right from wrong.
*'''[[Political Philosophy]]''': The analysis of the nature of the human public sphere, which one may consider the ethics of the way society is arranged.
*'''[[Philosophy of Science]]''': The analysis of scientific concepts and methodology, which concerns itself mostly with the foundations of [[science]], and interdisciplinary areas.
*'''[[Aesthetics]]''': The analysis of the nature and experience of [[art]] and beauty.

== Brief History ==

Philosophy in the West begins with [[Thales]] of Miletus, who was the first astronomer in recorded history to accurately predict a solar eclipse. The Milesian School founded by Thales included [[Anaxagoras]], [[Anaximander]], and [[Anaximenes]]. Closely related is the work of [[Heraclitus]] of Ephesus. Around the time of Heraclitus, [[Parmenides]] of Elea, with his pupil [[Xeno]], raised some serious objections to the project of [[Milesian philosophy]]. These objections laid the groundwork for [[Socrates]] and his pupil [[Plato]], as well as the Atomists, [[Democritus]] and [[Leucippus]].

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Philosophy

2008-05-14T06:26:03Z

NosnhoJE:

'''Philosophy''' (literally 'love of wisdom', from the Ancient Greek word φιλοσοφία (philosophía), which comes from φίλος (phílos) and σοφία (sophía), meaning friend/lover and wisdom respectively) is an academic discipline concerned with the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality. Philosophy progresses according to various methods of rational inquiry.

Philosophy is accurately described as both the first science and the "Queen of the Sciences". Until the late 19th century, what is now called "science" was subsumed under ''Natural Philosophy''.

Philosophy in the West has its origins in Ancient Greece, but there is an important divide between [[Analytic philosophy|Anglophone]] philosophy and [[Continental philosophy]]. This divide can be traced back to the late 19th century and a split in focus between [[Gottlob Frege]] and the intellectual descendants of [[Friedrich Hegel]].

The main branches of philosophy are [[Metaphysics]], which is (broadly speaking) the study of what-is; [[Ethics]], the study of correct action; [[Logic]], the rules (both formal and informal) of reason; and [[Epistemology]], the study of knowledge. Notable sub-branches include [[Philosophy of Science]], [[Philosophy of language]], [[Political Philosophy]], and [[Philosophy of mind]].

== Branches of Analytic Philosophy ==

Broadly speaking, there are a number of topics one would expect to fall under the title '''Philosophy''':

*'''[[Logic]]''': The analysis of terms, propositions and the principles of reasoning
*'''[[Metaphysics]]''': The analysis of concepts which transcend physical science, including the [[Philosophy of mind]].
*'''[[Epistemology]]''': The analysis of the nature of knowledge, how we know, and what we can and cannot know.
*'''[[Ethics]]''': The analysis of the nature of [[morality]] and morals, how and why we determine right from wrong.
*'''[[Political Philosophy]]''': The analysis of the nature of the human public sphere, which one may consider the ethics of the way society is arranged.
*'''[[Philosophy of Science]]''': The analysis of scientific concepts and methodology, which concerns itself mostly with the foundations of [[science]], and interdisciplinary areas.
*'''[[Aesthetics]]''': The analysis of the nature and experience of [[art]] and beauty.

== Brief History ==

Philosophy in the West begins with [[Thales]] of Miletus, who was the first astronomer in recorded history to accurately predict a solar eclipse. The Milesian School founded by Thales included [[Anaxagoras]], [[Anaximander]], and [[Anaximenes]]. Closely related is the work of [[Heraclitus]] of Ephesus. Around the time of Heraclitus, [[Parmenides]] of Elea, with his pupil [[Xeno]], raised some serious objections to the project of [[Milesian philosophy]]. These objections laid the groundwork for [[Socrates]] and his pupil [[Plato]], as well as the Atomists, [[Democritus]] and [[Leucippus]].

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:Philosophy

2008-05-14T06:22:34Z

NosnhoJE:

Philosophy

2008-05-14T06:20:46Z

NosnhoJE: Expand description to take into account Continental/Analytic split; work on History

'''Philosophy''' (literally 'love of wisdom', from the Ancient Greek word φιλοσοφία (philosophía), which comes from φίλος (phílos) and σοφία (sophía), meaning friend/lover and wisdom respectively) is an academic discipline concerned with the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality. Philosophy progresses according to various methods of rational inquiry.

Philosophy is accurately described as both the first science and the "Queen of the Sciences". Until the late 19th century, what is now called "science" was subsumed under ''Natural Philosophy''.

Philosophy in the West has its origins in Ancient Greece, but there is an important divide between [[Anglophone|Analytic philosophy]] philosophy and [[Continental philosophy]]. This divide can be traced back to the late 19th century and a split in focus between [[Gottlob Frege]] and the intellectual descendants of [[Friedrich Hegel]].

The main branches of philosophy are [[Metaphysics]], which is (broadly speaking) the study of what-is; [[Ethics]], the study of correct action; [[Logic]], the rules (both formal and informal) of reason; and [[Epistemology]], the study of knowledge. Notable sub-branches include [[Philosophy of Science]], [[Philosophy of Language]], [[Political Philosophy]], and [[Philosophy of Mind]].

== Branches of Analytic Philosophy ==

Broadly speaking, there are a number of topics one would expect to fall under the title '''Philosophy''':

*'''[[Logic]]''': The analysis of terms, propositions and the principles of reasoning
*'''[[Metaphysics]]''': The analysis of concepts which transcend physical science, including the [[Philosophy of mind]].
*'''[[Epistemology]]''': The analysis of the nature of knowledge, how we know, and what we can and cannot know.
*'''[[Ethics]]''': The analysis of the nature of [[morality]] and morals, how and why we determine right from wrong.
*'''[[Political Philosophy]]''': The analysis of the nature of the human public sphere, which one may consider the ethics of the way society is arranged.
*'''[[Philosophy of Science]]''': The analysis of scientific concepts and methodology, which concerns itself mostly with the foundations of [[science]], and interdisciplinary areas.
*'''[[Aesthetics]]''': The analysis of the nature and experience of [[art]] and beauty.

== Brief History ==

Philosophy in the West begins with [[Thales]] of Miletus, who was the first astronomer in recorded history to accurately predict a solar eclipse. The Milesian School founded by Thales included [[Anaxagoras]], [[Anaximander]], and [[Anaximenes]]. Closely related is the work of [[Heraclitus]] of Ephesus. Around the time of Heraclitus, [[Parmenides]] of Elea, with his pupil [[Xeno]], raised some serious objections to the project of [[Milesian philosophy]]. These objections laid the groundwork for [[Socrates]] and his pupil [[Plato]], as well as the Atomists, [[Democritus]] and [[Leucippus]].

[[Category:Philosophy]]