Some versions of open theism deny that the undetermined parts of the future can be known because there are no truths about that part of the future. Such positions say as well that for the parts of the future that are causally determined by events that have already happened, there are such truths and hence that knowledge of that part of the future is possible.

I don't quite understand why that would be true so long as causal determinism is compatible with the possibility of miracles. If we understand miracles as incompatible with laws of nature, I understand the view. But nobody should understand miracles in that way, and if we don't, I don't see how causal determinism will do the work this version of open theism needs. For even given the fixity of the past (and present) and the laws of nature, it won't follow that, e.g., the sun will rise tomorrow. So what I don't quite see is how an open theist who wishes to deny truth values for the undetermined part of the future can allow such truth values for the determined part, without either denying the possibility of miracles or interpreting them as incompatible with laws of nature.

Ever since the Religion at Rutgers conference earlier this month I've been thinking about evil and have posted here and here about it (note: thoughts about evil should be strictly distinguished from evil thoughts!). Here I want to report, as accurately as I can, an experimental conversation I had with my wife, Sarah, about bringing suffering people into the world.

The starting question was this: Suppose you had to take intense fertility treatments in order to have children. Suppose further that it is virtually guaranteed that you will have octuplets (just bracket ordinary concerns about having octuplets, go to a world where that's really no hassle), and that it is also virtually guaranteed that at least one and possibly two of the children will experience side-effects of the fertility treatment such that they will suffer serious physical and emotional pain for the first decade of their life. However, it is also virtually guaranteed--perfectly guaranteed if it helps--that the other children will have quite good lives and in fact most will be quite happy. The only other option is not to have any children at all. What would you do? I'll put her reply and the rest of the dialog below the fold.

Grad Student Conference

The University of Kentucky is organizing a conference on contemporary issues in Islamic philosophy and theology. We invite graduate students, and those of equivalent status, to present papers at the conference. It will take place at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA September 28-30 2007.

Prospective presenters should send the following details by e-mail to the conference secretary by April 31, 2007 and they will be informed shortly afterwards whether their topics fit into the general conference themes:

• CV
• An abstract of the paper no more than 300 words

UPDATE: I'm moving this to the top as the deadline for submission has been extended to January 31st.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 22 to 24, 2007
University of Dubuque
Dubuque, IA

Conference Theme: Developing Character: Moral and Intellectual Virtues

Plenary Speakers: Linda Zagzebski, University of Oklahoma; Janine Idziak, Loras College; Paul Reasoner, Bethel University

Papers on any topic of philosophical interest will be considered, with some preference given to papers that connect with the conference theme. Participation is welcomed from both Christians and non-Christians. Submissions should have a reading time of 20 to 30 minutes and be prepared for blind review. Abstracts will be considered. Volunteers to chair sessions are also solicited. Deadline for submission: December 31, 2006.

For further information, email rebertz@dbq.edu
Send submissions and requests to chair to: rebertz@dbq.edu

Cosponsored by the Wendt Center for Character Education, University of Dubuque.
Roger P. Ebertz
Department of Philosophy and Religion
University of Dubuque
2000 University Avenue
Dubuque, IA 52001
Phone: 563-589-3669
Office Phone: 563-589-3669
FAX: 563-589-3690
Email: rebertz@dbq.edu

In addition to Luke Gelinas's interesting paper advocating one advantage of the Openness view over Molinism (mentioned in previous post) there was another paper advocating an approach to evil which emphasizes the limits of God's power. Neal DeRoo (Boston College) presented a paper called "The Weakness of God" which appeared to advocate a response to the logical problem of evil which gave up God's omnipotence.

What I want to note is that both Luke's and Neal's papers needed (admittedly) to appeal to the same kinds of considerations regarding evil as traditional theists do. And either those responses work for the traditional theist or they do not. If they do, then the nontraditional approaches which weaken the concept of God seem superfluous. Here's a little more detail.

Interestingly a paper attempting to argue that God as conceived by openness theorists is morally better (roughly) than the God as conceived by Molinists (Luke Gelinas, University of Toronto) actually reduced my discomfort with Molinism.

Like Hasker, it has always seemed to me that God gets *just* the world he wanted and--considering the world--that's morally blameworthy. God carefully plans each act of cruelty. He does it, as Hasker is reported to say, "in cold blood."

There is an essay by Robin Collins on "Eastern Religions" in Reason for the Hope Within (also online here) in which he examines the tenability of various forms of Hinduism and Buddhism. In many respects however, his critique falls short. The problem with Collins's critique is not so much to do with substance as it is to do with method. The problems with method lead however to a number of problems which are more substantive.

Jonathan Bennett has added three new translations to his Early Modern Texts website, at least two of them to some degree relevant to philosophy of religion. They are, as Bennett describes them:

1. Jonathan Edwards, The Freedom of the Will - the earliest masterpiece of American philosophy. Except for its last few sections (on the Christian problem of evil) this work is imaginatively worked-out, densely argued, continuously interesting and engaging.

2. John Stuart Mill, Three Essays on Religion (Nature, Usefulness of Religion, Theism).

3. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason up to the end of the Analytic. For the Preface and the Transcendental Deduction of the Categories, both A and B versions are included. Otherwise only (B) the second edition is followed....

I plan to work next on one or more of: Spinoza’s Treatise on Theology and Politics, the correspondence between Leibniz and Clarke, Hume’s second Enquiry

For those unfamiliar with Bennett's work, he has been producing translations of early modern philosophical texts that are intended to be suitable for undergraduates who would have trouble reading the standard editions of these texts. Older English works are translated into more contemporary English, and non-English works are either translated anew or updated from older translations. Explanatory notes, sometimes interpretive and sometimes providing background information, are inserted into the text in brackets. I've found them to be very useful in teaching students without a strong background in reading early modern philosophy, even if there might be some reasons to be hesitant about using them with students who will go on in philosophy.

I kicked off the conference with a paper Ted (Poston) and I wrote on the way back from an SCP meeting two years ago. It's a response to Sider's "Hell and Vagueness". Ted (Sider) was a very good sport about my teasing and we had some good go-rounds.

It's so awesome to meet some real sharp young philosophers of religion. Every conference I meet a few more and it's very encouraging.

Hung out with Dean Zimmerman until the wee hours at a local pub discussing mostly how vagueness affects persistence questions...look for some good stuff coming out in the next couple of years.

There are two more sessions tomorrow, but I know I won't have a chance to blog again until Monday or Tuesday. I hope to discuss the contents of a paper or two in a bit more detail.

Douglas Portmore of PEA Soup has generously put up a wiki for information on philosophy journals. The Philosophy Journals Information wiki is a "place for authors, editors, and referees to share information on philosophy journals: their editorial practices, response times, backlogs on publishing, policies on providing comments to authors, etc." This kind of information would be especially useful for younger philosophers. I've already added entries for the main philosophy of religion journals, so now we just need some of our published contributors and readers to fill in the details.