About Steven Dunn

Steven Dunn is the author of "Hellenistic Christendom"; a blog with a primary focus on the philosophy of religion and other philosophical/theological subjects relevant to his interests (existentialism, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, etc.). He completed high school in May of 2013 and will be starting Community College in June of 2014 pursuing a degree in Philosophy. He currently resides in Tampa, FL.

Objection(s) to the Ontological Argument

It may be strange to some that there are philosophical objections raised by Christians against arguments for belief in God. For example, St. Anselm’s “Ontological Proof” (as it would come to be called) was taken under a critical lens when Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) took consideration of the argument in his epic Summa Theologiae (ST hereafter). Over the last year or so, I have written numerous defenses of Anselm’s argument as well as criticisms so as to see if we have a legitimate and defensible argument for God’s existence.

Gaunilo and Kant’s criticism aside, there are several other considerable objections to the argument that I think are serious enough to address. Two in particular come to mind. Mortimer J. Adler (1980) makes the point in his book How to Think About God that existential propositions do not entail logical necessity. As he writes at length:

No existential proposition can be self-evidently true or necessarily true. When we have direct perceptual acquaintance with a particular individual, the existence of that individual is evident to us, but the proposition which asserts that the individual exists is not self-evident, nor is its truth necessary. Self-evident propositions are propositions which we know to be true directly from our understanding of their component terms, not by process of reasoning or inference. (Adler 1980: 104)

[Read more...]

Creatures Point to Christ

Death always seems to be a negative or morbid subject. Whatever connotation it may have, the only thing significant about it is that it is real – i.e., we are going to die one day. As Blaise Pascal put it into words: “When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in the eternity before and after, the little space which I fill. . .  I am frightened, and shocked at being here” (Livingston 2006, 134). Philosophers have given special attention to this reality and have articulated it in such a way that, in fact, from them we can gain insight. 

Socrates said that philosophy is for the dead. Particularly in the Phaedo he says, “For I deem that the true disciple of philosophy is likely to be misunderstood by other men; they do not perceive that he is ever pursuing death and dying” (Wartenberg 2008, 101).  Death is what separates the soul from the body according to Socrates, and hence, the disembodied soul is then able to pursue “real” knowledge,” and so, the philosopher in his pursuit of wisdom and knowledge should not be afraid of death.  [Read more...]

#EndFathersDay: Where the Twitter Trend Gets Fathers Wrong

With the arrival of Father’s Day this Sunday, Twitter has unleashed a new hashtag that has primarily to do with the disgust of male patriarchy and the lack of consideration for single mothers and/or same-sex couples on this day. The hashtag? “#EndFathersDay.” According to one tweet, “#EndFathersDay because it’s a slap in the face to single mothers everywhere.” Although there is some discussion regarding these phenomena to be a hoax emerging from sites like 4chan and Reddit, journalists and freelance writers from various organizations are nonetheless hopping aboard this trend and sticking to it.

For example, Haig Chahinian and his article over at the Los Angeles Times is sympathetic with this line of thinking, although his argument is not particularly feminist in nature. He himself being a married homosexual male, Chahinian observes that “…[r]ecent census data indicates only 19% of homes are composed of traditional moms, dads and kids. More than 11 million residences with kids are headed by a single person or a same-sex couple” (Chahinian, 2014). What conclusion does Chahinian draw? “These families too have to be fumbling through one of the parents’ holidays.” Chahinian’s solution: “the all-inclusive Parents’ Day.”

[Read more...]

Marriage: A Personalist Treatment

Through the voice of the playwright Aristophanes, Plato in his Symposium tells of a wonderful myth regarding the meaning of love. In the beginning, says Aristophanes, humans were comprised of having two halves: male halves and female halves (hence having four arms, four legs and two heads). Due to the authority of Zeus, he punishes the human race for misconduct and splits everyone into two pieces. Since then, wanderers are walking the earth in search of their other half. In this story, we see (perhaps not so much an explanation of homosexuality) but a placement of homosexuals and heterosexual on a similar plane of sexuality. As Aristophanes writes:

And so, when a person meets the half that is his very own, whatever his orientation, whether its to young men or not, then something wonderful happens: the two are struck from their senses by love, by a sense of belonging to one another, and by desire, and they don’t want to be separated from one another, not even for a moment. [1]

While this mythic account of the meaning of love may contain some kind of aesthetic appeal to us, the issue isn’t of course that simple. There is something more grander taking place in the mutual relationship of two lovers: namely, a striving for “the good,” where the well-being and the self-realization of each partner are of overriding importance to one another. As Karol Wojtyla (a.k.a. Pope John Paul II) argues in his book, Love and Responsibility (1981), I as a person desire the good for myself. In “loving” another person I am not using them as a means to my own central end. Rather,

I may want another person to desire the same good which I myself desire. Obviously, the other must know this end of mine, recognize it as a good, and adopt it. If this happens, a special bond is established  between me and this other person: the bond of a common good and of a common aim. This special bond does not mean merely that we both seek a common good, it also unites the persons involved internally, and so constitutes the essential core round which any love must grow. [2]

[Read more...]

God in History

With Easter just a few days around the corner, I believe it is important that we remember the greater historical reality this day points to: that God became man, “made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant” (Phil. 2:7) and remained obedient to death – “even to death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8). This postulate (“God became man”) has incalculable historical, political, social, and even existential implications for our lives. Several reasons for this emerge.

To start, the nature of belief – when understood provisionally in terms of the human understanding – is a troubling notion to those who regard it in our modern age as a mere “holding of tradition,” a (1) trusting of that which is not visible and (2) an attitude towards things that don’t seem to really progress a rational society. The Christian in his attitude of the credo (“I believe”) – that unifying instant where his “I” matches the object of his “believe” – is going against his natural inclinations of the “visible”, but of course not contradicting them. As Pope Benedict XVI nicely explained it:

[Believing] means that man does not regard seeing, hearing and touching as the totality of what concerns him, that he does not view the area of his world as marked off by what he can see and touch but seeks a second mode of access to reality, a mode he calls in fact belief, and in such a way that he finds in it the decisive enlargement of his whole view of the world. [1]

[Read more...]