Brian Leiter reports that Ruth Barcan Marcus passed away on February 19th, 2012. Marcus was a philosopher at Yale and focused on logic, ethics, metaphysics and epistemology. Barcan is the creator of what is called the Barcan formula which states that If everything is necessarily F, then it is necessary that everything is F. Timothy Willamson writes in his tribute,

“In reading her work, one has a strong sense that there is truth and falsity in philosophy, just as in other sciences, however hard it is to tell the difference. Sometimes, in sincerely honouring a genuinely distinguished philosopher, one nevertheless feels that in the end all their distinctive ideas will turn out to lie on the false side of the line. So it is a special pleasure to have been praising Ruth, many of whose main ideas are not just original, and clever, and beautiful, and fascinating, and influential, and way ahead of their time, but actually — I believe — true.”

Original post by Leiter is here.

In case you were wondering.

On January 27th, 2012, Dr. Peter Boghossian of Portland State University presented a controversial thesis to a packed crowd : faith is a belief-producing process that does not lead one to the truth.

In this talk, sponsored by The Freethinkers of Portland State University and published by philosophynews.com, Dr. Boghossian argues that faith-based processes are unreliable and unlikely to lead one to the truth. Since our goal as knowers is to have more true beliefs than false ones, faith, as a process for getting to the truth, should be abandoned in favor of other, more reliable processes. The talk was followed by a question and answer session from the audience.

There are many bad ways of discovering truth about the way the world works like divination, dowsing, sacrificing animals, and lucky guesses. And most people—even people of faith—would agree that these are poor and unreliable. Faith, says Dr. Boghossian, is like these other methods and should be discarded on the same grounds. He shows how the practices of various religious traditions have been shown using the methods of science to be ineffective and lead their practitioners to false conclusions. When confronted with the discomforting evidence, people of faith tend to shift their claim from, “my faith is true” to “my faith is useful.” But this isn’t a valid move argues Boghossian.

In this powerful presentation, professor Boghossian is not interested merely in tearing down faith but in demonstrating how a life guided by reason and evidence can be so much richer and more fulfilling.

Copyright © 2012 by Peter Boghossian and Philosophy News

If you would like to embed this video on your blog or website, please contact paulp@philosophynews.com (we mainly want to ensure the video is properly attributed).

Other Resources

Peter’s faculty webpage at Portland State University

Philosophy News interviewed Peter recently on his views. You can hear that interview here.

Follow Peter on Twitter.

For folks in the Seattle area that are interested in philosophy, I'll be giving a talk at the Capitol Hill Theology Pub on February 21st at 7:30p. My topic is titled "Knowing God Exists" and will cover the religious epistemology of Alvin Plantinga. Info here: http://www.meetup.com/TheologyPub/events/50750482/?a=ea1_lnm&rv=ea1

I just discovered that Stand to Reason radio, a feature of the conservative Christian apologetics organization Stand to Reason, referenced my most recent Huffington Post article titled, “Why Faith Claims Should Be ‘Corrected’: A Professor’s Argument” on their national broadcast. In fact the host, J. Warner Wallace, read the entire article on the air and then commented on it. The article (and more importantly the ideas of Dr. Peter Boghossian which the article was about) has generated quite a bit of interest and discussion, and this is further evidence that people are deeply interested in these topics.

The STR broadcast is carried live on over 100 stations and is available via podcast and download as well.

You can listen to the broadcast here. The host begins talking about my article at about the 29:30 minute mark.

Thanks to Bob Seidensticker for the pointer.

Program in existential psychoanalysis and phenomenology at the Existential Psychoanalytic Institute of Seattle

The 2-year certification program in existential psychoanalysis and phenomenology is designed for M.A./Ph.D. students or graduates in psychology, counseling, social work, philosophy, or a related field who are interested in the theoretical and clinical aspects of psychoanalysis (both traditional and existential), phenomenology, and critical philosophy (primarily of the European tradition, 18th-21st centuries).

The program is a full two years, spanning 24 months in duration and should be of particular interest to practitioners who want intensive study in psychoanalysis in a program that includes competitive tuition, publishing opportunities, and a curriculum that is broader, deeper, and richer than other programs of this type. EPIS also has a 4-year program that requires additional study, clinical and research experience, and personal analysis; a student who completes the 2-year program may transfer directly into the 3rd year of the 4-year program without interruption. We also have a purely academic/theoretical track for philosophers. Please go to contact page at episeattle.com for more information.

Rachel Martin talks to Dr. Plantinga about his new book, Where the Conflict Really Lies. You can listen to the interview here. If you enjoyed this short interview, check out the interview Philosophy News did with Dr. Plantinga on the book here.

Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism

.

Dr. Peter Boghossian, philosophy professor at Portland State University in Oregon, gave a provocative talk last night (January 27, 2012) at Hoffman Hall at PSU titled, “Jesus, the Easter Bunny, and Other Delusions: Just Say No!” Philosophy News was there and the event lived up to the hype (see the link to our tweetcast of the event below). Professor Boghossian doesn’t mince words when it comes to his opinion about faith. Not only are faith claims false, he argues, they have all the earmarks of being delusional. And while many people believe their faith either is harmless or even helpful, Boghossian claims that any beliefs that are based on a delusion are in fact detrimental to the person holding them. Faith claims should be rejected on this ground.

The event was very well attended. People were lining up 30 minutes before the talk in freezing temperatures in order to secure a seat and before Peter got up to talk, the large hall was packed to standing room only. There was a tremendous amount of interest in the topic and the audience was fully engaged (a couple even enraged) throughout the evening (most even staying through a 10 minute break for the opportunity to ask a question). The event was managed well and professionally done. Peter’s slides were slick sporting single words or nicely-produced images that were both evocative and controversial. The speaker nailed the talk.

His core thesis was rather simple and, on the face of it, relatively uncontroversial: there are some belief-producing processes that get one closer to reality (they’re reliable) and others that move one further away.  He gave an example: he has a door in his home that has a hole in it and needs repair. Given that he’s unskilled in home repair, how should he go about figuring out how best to fix the door, he asked. He gave some options that he assumes most people would think are bad ways. He could ask his dog, he could use divination, he could sacrifice a goat and hope he gets some inspiration. He admits that, using these methods, he might stumble upon the “right way” but if he did so, it would be by pure luck. These are not reliable processes. These processes generally lead to unreliable conclusions. This, he hoped, would be a relatively uncontroversial claim. Most in the audience seemed to agree.

He then asked, “What are our epistemic goals?” Aligning with traditional epistemology, he provided the answer: maximize true beliefs and minimize false ones. The best way to maximize true beliefs is to use reliable belief-producing processes to form beliefs. Those processes are ones that use evidence to support one’s conclusions.

Faith, he then claimed, is not a reliable belief-producing process because it’s not based on evidence. It was here that he dropped his bombshell. Not only are conclusions based on faith false, but they’re delusional. He supported this claim by providing three tests of delusional beliefs. The people that hold them believe they are certain. They are incorrigible (not subject to falsification) for that person. And the beliefs themselves are implausible. He gave the example of believing that the Eucharist transforms into the body and blood of Christ. People that believe this appear to be certain its true. Further, if scientific tests were done to show that the wafer remains a wafer (it has the properties of bread not of human flesh) this will not be enough to disabuse the believer of her belief—nor would any other evidence. Thus the belief is incorrigible for that person. Finally, the idea that a bit of bread would turn into the body of a human-divine being (an idea which also doesn’t have the ring of truth to it) and then that we should eat this thing, itself is implausible.

All faith claims have these properties and so all faith claims are delusional and do not get one closer to reality. Just say no, Boghossian urged.

The most amusing part of the evening happened towards the end of the talk. Professor Boghossian gave an altar call asking people to come forward and jettison their faith. He talked about how, with a simple decision, they could cease to be shackled by their faith and live a new, free life. It drew laughs and scattered applause from the audience.

Not everyone in the audience were friendlies. One gentleman, clearly angry at what he viewed as the speakers bias and disinclination to engage with those who disagree, passed out a typed manifesto before the talk hoping to enlighten the audience to the Boghossian’s apparent hypocrisy. This came out even more strongly in the Q/A session where, stepping to the microphone, he challenged Peter and angrily demanded that he debate him and allow him to come to his classes. Ignoring the moderator, he became more and more shrill until a student of Boghossian jumped up and said to the man, “I’m in his class and I don’t want you there!”

Peter’s certainly is not the last word on this subject and his talk was intended to generate interest and discussion—and it certainly did (I overheard attendees talking about it blocks away as I walked to get dinner at local pub). When all was said and done, Peter left the stage to a standing ovation having clearly connected with his audience and used his material in a maximally effective way. In graduate school, I took a class titled, “Philosophical Debate” in which the professor explained that every public debate needs to connect on three levels: logos – you must know your material; pathos – you must connect with your audience; and ethos – you must connect with and respect your interlocutor. Agree with him or not, Professor Boghossian accomplished all three with aplomb.

While there, I tweetcasted the entire event. You can read that tweetcast here (browse to January 27, 2012 for the feed).

To hear more about Dr. Boghossian’s views on this topic, check out our podcast recorded in December of 2011.

**Update (2/14/2012): The video of Peter's presentation is now available here.

The end of each year brings the customary “best”, “worst”, and “newsworthy” lists for various subjects such as sports, political events, and movies. Any list describing the most significant political events of 2011 will undoubtedly include the Arab Spring—a series of events kick-started on December 2010 by a fruit vendor, named Mohammed Boauzizi, in the town of Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia. Mohammed’s self-immolation began the Tunisian Revolution which resulted in the resignation of their 23 year president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. These events provoked a series of revolutions and demonstrations throughout the Arab World. It led to the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, the death of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and the resignation of Abdullah Saleh in Yemen.

In addition, there have been major protests in Syria, Bahrain, and other Arab nations. There have been many causes for the Arab Spring such as high unemployment, inequitable distribution of income, the disenfranchisement of voters, high food prices, government corruption, nepotism, and the suppression of basic freedoms. The call for greater accountability in government officials had been evident in the protests and uprisings as the citizens of the Arab world became tired of the substandard treatment handed out by their governing officials along with the lack of transparency in the governing process. This has not been exclusive to the Arab world as the same concerns have arisen in Russia with numerous protesters against election fraud in Russia’s latest elections.

The Arab Spring raises numerous issues in political philosophy such as the justification of the state, the nature of the state, and the role of the state, liberty, and property. All of these concepts are evident in these monumental series of events. Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques-Rousseau are believed to be the foremost political philosophers of Western Civilization. However, the 17^th century British philosopher, John Locke, holds a special place in American political thought. His views had a great impact upon the Founding Fathers of our country, particularly James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and served as the philosophical foundation for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Like Hobbes and Rousseau, Locke believed in the social contract theory. This theory states that there exists an arrangement among the governed to submit to a common authority. As a result, the governed surrender themselves to a sovereign authority. This theory is an attempt to answer the question, “What justifies the existence of the state?” Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke were avid proponents of the social contract because they felt that the existence of the state was necessary for the flourishing of mankind. Locke is famously known for his emphasis on individual liberty and personal autonomy. This emphasis served as the principal philosophical catalyst for the independence of our country.

Locke believed that human beings are naturally free and equal. They are not naturally under the authority of another person or persons. Unlike Hobbes who argued for absolute power to the sovereign authority and argued against resistance against the sovereign, Locke argued that the governed do not surrender all their rights simply because they participate in the social contract. The governed retain their basic freedoms and these freedoms place limitations on the power of the governing authority.

How might Locke perceive the Arab Spring? This is best answered through Locke’s idea of the social contract and the consent of the governed. For Locke, someone is obligated to obey political authorities if they give their voluntary consent. However, Locke believed in two types of consent: express and tacit. Locke discusses these types in Two Treatises of Government. Express consent is straightforward. Locke defined it as a “declaration of a man's consent to make [himself] subject to the laws of any government." This consent was written or spoken. Tacit consent is not that straightforward. Locke defined tacit consent as such:

“Every man that hath any possession or enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government doth thereby give his tacit consent, and as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government during such enjoyment as anyone under it; whether this his possession be of land to him and his heirs forever, or a lodging only for a week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on the highway.”

According to Locke, a government is legitimate if consent is provided by the governed. However, there are those who have not given express consent to an authority or government. This group of people gave tacit consent by accepting the benefits of their government. They have tacitly consented to their government and burdens imposed by their government. Although they have not consented explicitly, the fact that they accept and enjoy services under the jurisdiction of the government produces an obligation on the governed to obey their authorities. The difficulty with tacit consent is the degree to which the consenter is bound or obligated to the government to which she is consenting.

Locke did not believe that express or tacit consent permitted a government from ruling with no restrictions whatsoever. Locke was clear, for example, that a government that devolved into tyranny was no longer the legitimate ruler of the governed and the governed were justified in resisting the authority of the government. Locke appealed to the Founding Fathers because of the relationship he advocated between a legitimate, consented government authority and the basic freedoms that the governed deserve.

As I mentioned previously, high unemployment, disenfranchisement of voters, government corruption, high food prices, and suppression of basic freedoms coupled with preexisting rifts such as tribal and religious divisions (e.g. tribalism in Libya, Sunni-Shia division in Yemen) explain the Arab Spring. These causes show that the governed in the affected countries were justified in resisting their authorities. The governments of these countries strongly restricted the rights of the governed. Journalists were not free to report the news; the government censored the Internet and imposed penalties on citizens who chose a different religion other than Islam; it prohibited the governed from freely assembling and expressing their views and interfered with property rights; the government also refused to hold fair and democratic elections.

These reasons and others are why Locke probably would agree that the citizens of the Arab Spring were justified in resisting their governing authorities. Their individual rights were violated and the governed is not under any obligation to submit to tyrannical authorities who govern with no regard to the individual rights of their subjects. Whether the Arab Spring will produce positive changes for the Arab world is yet to be seen. The effects of the Arab Spring will take time to be measured. However, looking at the Arab Spring through the eyes of John Locke shows us that the citizens of the Arab Spring possess rights independent of the state and they have made this point known loud and clear.

Northwestern’s Epistemology Brownbag series will be in its fourth year in Academic Year 2012-13. For those epistemologists whose plans take you to Chicago on a Wednesday during the academic year, consider coming to present an epistemology paper of yours at our brownbag series. If you are interested, please contact Northwestern epistemologist and graduate student Amy Floweree [AmyFlowerree2011@u.northwestern.edu] to let her know of your interest and your Chicago plans.

The Philosophy Department at Northwestern thanks Matthew Mullins, who has been at the center of the Northwestern Epistemology Brownbag series from the very start. Matthew will be handing over the administration of the series to Amy in AY 2012-13. His tireless outreach efforts have enabled us to have many excellent epistemologists, from all over the world, present papers at our workshops in the past three years (see the schedules of the first year and the second year). For this the Northwestern philosophical community and the Chicago-area epistemology community owe him a huge debt of gratitude.

Reposted from Certain Doubts