Descendants of Grace Monergistic Assembly

Author: Yskander Arquimides Saucedo

  • Existentialism: The Individual

    Three Cheers for Individualism. Individualism is often attacked by the… | by James Peron | The Radical Center | Medium

    Existentialism was one of the most influential philosophies of the twentieth century. The starting point of the philosophy is the individual’s existence. The world’s existence is considered non-sensical and void of an essence; therefore, absurd. Ethics, morality, emotions, ideas, and knowledge stem from the idea of the individual as the foundation. Existentialism differs from other philosophies because it begins with the individual instead of universals. Universals and absolutes are meaningless, and the individual is the only meaningful focus to live an authentic life emphasizing human freedom and responsibility. Personal insight is a critical means of reaching a general truth. The truth reached is subjective and existential philosophers do not assert objective truth. Neither is there an outline or systematic account of existential thought as a concrete application. Nevertheless, the lack of objectivity does not discount the credibility of existentialism as a philosophy. Existentialism produces extensive utility of individualism in many applications of life. Still, the lack of objectivity can produce catastrophic consequences as well.  

    Existence precedes essence is perhaps the existentialist phrase that conceptualizes its premise. The concept contrasts with the idea that people have innate or predetermined qualities or destinies. The essence of the person is the nature of the human being. Common thought may dictate that the essence determines a person’s attributes. Essence will determine how a person lives and perhaps their fate in life. For the existentialist, the essence of the person is secondary to existence. The person exists as a blank slate living to determine the person’s essence. Nothing predetermines fate; only the choices made demonstrate fate. Through the choices in life, we determine our essence and fate. Actions define values instead of an objective definition. If one attempts to avoid critical decision-making or actions, the existentialist claims that the individual is ultimately responsible for the avoidance. Like most philosophers, the existentialist attempts to understand the value of life and its relation to one another.

    However, there is no objectivity to deduce concrete definitions or absolute universal authority ruling over existence for the existentialist. All individual essence and existence are defined subjectively by the individual instead of an objectively existing God setting universal rules as a standard of people’s existence. God is dead is a phrase that primarily echoes a conceptualized theme of the atheist existentialist. But not all existentialists are atheists, and neither is atheism a determining factor in becoming an existentialist. There are several theistic existentialists, including Soren Kierkegaard, who is considered the first existentialist. Arguably, the problem of the theist existentialist is whether the will of God is considered objective knowledge. More agreeable within the existential community is that the existence of people is self-evident, and it is up to the individual to realize why and how we exist.

    A theme I admire about existentialism is its highlight that individualism is an achievement. Individualistic achievement ideas can be transcendent not only in the existential sense but also in any way a person feels applicable in life. Consider the world in its current state and ask how each person considers themselves an individual or part of a community. It is a broad topic, but ultimately, people live politically and spiritually under large and powerful governments and are mainly subject to whatever information surrounds them. Idealistic groups grasp the minds of people and breed conformity. People become complacent with accepting whatever a particular group decides is moral or factual. To begin questioning each other’s beliefs seems divisive and is considered dangerous by those who willingly subject themselves to a herd mentality. When people cannot think for themselves, they become equivalent to cattle blindly following a herd. To break away from the herd is to awaken from a conscientious slumber, which is an achievement.

    With Kierkegaard, it applied to the belief that God “will always involve an individual choice, and an individual “leap of faith” and he goes so far as to argue that true religious faith is antithetical to the demands of public organizations such as the church” (Reynolds p. 4). In Kierkegaard’s rationality, Hegelian philosophy, the State Church, and the printing press did the thinking for the masses and was the conformity of his time. Consider now the conformity of our time. Our printing press is social media, television, radio, and other technological mediums that transmit ambiguous information that influences clarity or manipulation. What philosophy and religious influence rules our countries morality and politics? Is it Kierkegaardian, Neitzshean, Kantian? Those who claim our politics are void of philosophy or religious philosophy have not awakened in the existential sense of individualism. Arguably, suppose each individual were to view our current political disposition objectively. In that case, they may notice that the philosophy of altruism has influenced the decisions of our current political climate. Altruism “was energetically attacked by Nietzsche as entailing an unhealthy suppression or devaluation of the self” (Blackburn p. 16). Nietzsche is not implying a suppression of self-esteem, but instead, he was bringing light to the subconscious compromise and self-sacrifice of one’s self for the sake of a less fortunate individual, primarily influenced by religious dogma. The clarity of Nietzsche in this regard is rational if one understands “the irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice – which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction – which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good” (Rand p.5). Consider our current taxation, migration, gun laws, and welfare policies, to name a few, and it is obvious to realize the mandatory compromise of hard-working, law-abiding citizens for the sake of belligerents, criminals, and non-citizens.

    There is an interesting parallel between existentialism, Christianity, and Plato’s Cave. From Plato, we learn people live their lives comparable to prisoners in a cave. Bound to a wall without the freedom to explore their surroundings and determine the basis of their reality. Finally, one individual breaks free and explores their surroundings and the reality external to the Cave. At this point, the individual acquires a new sense of metaphysics and epistemology. The individual realizes the deception of his false reality and becomes motivated by what he now considers truth. In Christian doctrine, people are born with a prison-like mind constrained to the human nature of sin. All mental strength and human will cannot release people from the Cave. It takes supernatural work from God to liberate the human mind and will from the chained wall. Once accomplished, the liberated individual is free to explore a new reality. What was once considered good is now realized as evil and vice versa according to the laws of God. Although existentialism is not exclusive to atheists, it has a humanistic appeal. Yet, it is still comparable to the Cave and the renewing of the spirit of Christianity. In a sense, those in the Cave and the fallen human nature are asleep and have not awakened in the existential sense, as Dr. Richard Gravil articulates, “They have not encountered themselves or their freedom. They do not even realize that life is absurd: it has no meaning, beyond what we give it . . . they are just segments of the crowd . . . but it is possible to come into existence through various agencies . . . which awakens them from everydayness into a consciousness in which it is open to them to choose themselves and their freedom” (p. 8). Regardless of any belief or disbelief in God and lack of axioms, I would consider at least one axiom. The axiom is that the truth of existence in every respect is found in the inward discovery of oneself, not in anything externally unseen or verifiable to rationality or the senses.

    In my perspective, because of the lack of absolute values and concrete objectivity, existentialism is more of a worldview that influences practical exercise. It reminds the mind to consider explanations outside the supernatural world. For some, the concept of external sources away from spiritual revelation becomes conflicting. The lack of open-mindedness is a problem for some people. The solution is the wedge delivered by existentialism through the inspiration of individualism. Existentialism inspires the responsibility of the individual in every sense. Debatably, the lack of absolutes in existentialism and freedom of subjectivity produces relative conclusions. For example, consider Nietzsche’s philosophy the Overman. Concisely, the Overman is Nietzsche’s idea of a person born into a world of moral conformity breaking away from religious bondage. Subsequently, the person now becomes an individual with the freedom to think apart from a herd mentality. In my perspective, one of the problems is that Nietzsche does not develop a universal definition of Overman. Most belief systems have ethical implications, and to exclude concrete developments leaves room for relative error.

    Consequently, when ideas or philosophies influence the world of politics, they can have catastrophic effects. For example, professor in English Literature Steven Earnshaw writes that “a direct line is sometimes traced from Nietzsche to the Nazis and the Holocaust, with the idea of the overman and a new elite as a call to arms which underwrites National Socialism” (p. 12). Such a prediction in the time of Nietzsche’s life would have been inconceivable. However, this is where the responsibility factor comes into play. Each individual is responsible for their ideas because they can influence individuals and groups for better or worse. Therefore, our ideas demand critical thought of how they can be interpreted, especially in politics. Existential freedom of thought and individuality is a great idea. However, without anything concrete to balance a measure of misinterpretation, it carries the propensities to enable freedom within human nature that act on selfish, immoral ambitions.

    Existentialism has its shortcomings, but its influence of individualism is a conscientious gift for developing an ability to think for oneself instead of remaining in conformity. Individualism and conformity are opposite attractions. An individual is an individual in mind but not in isolation. There is no utility in keeping our thoughts to ourselves alone. Nevertheless, neither would I fault anyone for trying since no one has the right to suppress or provoke one for speaking their mind outside of a court hearing. An existentialist may or may not agree that it is natural to express the ambition of knowledge, something learned, or a genuine idea. It is natural for us to argue and persuade people of knowledge. Perhaps, these are essential qualities of the human being. It is up to us to discover whether these qualities are essential to our existence, or as the existentialist may contrarily argue, existence precedes essence. In either case, once a certain amount of people agree with an idea, they become a group of like-minded thinkers and have in themselves established mutual conformity. That is the opposite attraction of individualism and conformity. Although individualism is achieved, it is never permanently achieved. It is a lifelong constant existential struggle to sustain individualism.

    Works Cited

    Reynolds, Jack. Understanding Existentialism, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest EbookCentral, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1900188.

    Blackburn, Simon. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 2016.Print.

    Rand, Ayn. The Ayn Rand Library Vol IV. The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z.The Penguin Group. New York. 1988. Print.

    Gravil, Richard. Existentialism, edited by Mark Addis, Humanities-Ebooks, LLP,2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=3306074.

    Earnshaw, Steven. Existentialism: a Guide for the Perplexed: A Guide for the Perplexed,Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1748144.

  • Existentialism: Nietzsche and the Death of God

    God is dead': What Nietzsche really meant - Big Think

    Existentialism is one of the most influential philosophies developed in the nineteenth century. The philosophy intends to discover answers to some of life’s most fundamental questions. The how and why of existence? What is existence, and how does our existence relate to the existence of others. Answering these questions assists in knowing each individual learning the purpose of their existence. Not all nineteenth-century existentialists agree entirely with each other’s views, but their philosophy’s primary principles are consistent. Several twentieth-century philosophers are considered vital developers of existentialism, such as Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre. The precursors of the nineteenth century include Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche. This short essay intends to briefly summarize a biography of Friedrich Nietzsche, his existential view, and one of his most famous statements, “God is Dead.”

    Nietzsche was born to a Protestant Pastor in Leipzig, Germany 1844. Unfortunately, his father passed while Nietzsche was five, but regardless of the circumstances, he attended one of the best schools in Germany and thoroughly studied humanities. He enjoyed Greek culture, German and English poetry, as well as becoming deeply influenced by the writings of Schopenhauer. At the age of 23, he entered military service in 1867 and was relieved due to a chest injury from a horse-riding accident that did not fully heal. After taking some time to heal, Nietzsche returned to Leipzig to complete his studies. Nietzsche developed a scholarly reputation and was offered a lectureship in Basel, Switzerland, before completing a doctorate and dissertation. In Switzerland, he taught between 1869 and 1879 but became too ill to continue working and lost interest in academics. He became highly critical of Western culture and education and traveled the next ten years producing his most notable works from location to location in solitude and illness. His years of ill health enabled a paralytic stroke in 1889, which resulted in nearly permanent mental derangement. Nietzsche was finally laid to rest in the year 1900 in the care of his sister in Weimar, Germany (Gravil p. 82).

    Nietzsche’s writings do not mention the term “existentialism.” Debatably, attempting to fine point Nietzsche to an existential community is not as simple as some think. Nietzsche was not a nihilist, the view that values have no justification, yet his writings convey no justification for absolute moral standards. Furthermore, Nietzsche is an enigmatic philosopher making it difficult to assign him to a particular philosophical school or movement. Philosophy lecturer Jack Reynolds claims that the term “(existentialism) was initially coined by Marcel, describing Sartre and others, and it only came to be accepted by Sartre and de Beauvoir a couple of years later in 1945” (p. 3). The acceptance of the term by Sartre and de Beauvoir enables some to think existentialism is exclusive to an atheistic group of people. Sartre and de Beauvoir did oppose their childhood religion in favor of atheism, Nietzsche doing the same and becoming anti-christian. Ironically, some consider the founding father of existentialism was a devout Christian, Soren Kierkegaard. Modern notable theistic existentialists such as Karl Jaspers and Gabriel Marcel indicate that atheism is not a predetermining quality of being an existentialist.

    One of Nietzsche’s most prominent statements is “God is dead.” The statement is quoted from academics to those who do not necessarily know where the quote originated. Nietzsche’s philosophy promoted a sense of humanistic freedom. A perspective of maintaining the mind within the compounds of physical cognitive properties and away from anything transcendental and spiritual. Perhaps a simple formula to understand his reasoning may follow: believing religious dogma blocks the mind from enlightenment, and removing the barriers of systematic belief systems liberates the mind to seek enlightenment confounded in physical existence. Dr. Richard Gavil comments that “God may have been an illusion, but He was a necessary illusion, and while His death may constitute a gift of freedom . . . as long as He lived, man had the possibility of a ready-made table of values” (p. 21). At the core, the statement “God is dead” is not necessarily about the ontological existence of God as a being, but the ascendancy of moral value believing in God influences society. Neither is Nietzsche claiming that the abandonment of God is wrong since an individual liberating themselves away from conformity is a quality in existential thought. Nietzsche seems to have a fair balance in the sense of recognizing the good and bad qualities of believing or not believing in God strictly when referencing moral value.

    Removing God as the absolute standard of moral values presents a paradoxical problem in the mind of Nietzsche. In one perspective, God as an absolute standard of moral law creates civil order in society. It creates a standard to measure a justice system instead of subjectively judging people for their crimes. It removes a sense of relativity and arbitrarily defining right and wrong, good and evil. On the opposite perspective, the previous line of reasoning creates a herd mentality. Breaking away from the herd and conformity creates individuality and freedom of thought, considered excellence within the existential community. With the “death of God,” man is now free to think for himself how morality exists and how to apply it effectively. Without God, man has become the existential standard of defining moral law. The question is, to what standard? Nietzsche reveals that morality is a problem without God’s moral law predetermined by God. “Given the death of God, surely everything is permissible, Nietzsche . . . morality is a problem, not something preordained by God” (Reynolds p. 9).

    Lastly, Friedrich Nietzsche is considered one of the most influential philosophers and founders of existential philosophy. His philosophy attempts to discover the answers to some of life’s most profound questions regarding the constructs of existence. Nietzsche was a revolutionary thinker, and his philosophy was highly influential. Nietzsche laid the foundation of existential philosophy for philosophers to build on, such as Karl Jaspers and Martin Heidegger, and several others. Nietzsche published several works and within them was one of his most recognized assertions, God is dead. However, the assertion was not necessarily speaking of the death of God’s existence as an ontologically necessary being. Therefore, God is dead is better interpreted as God is abandoned. The abandonment of God provokes a humanistic will to become the standard of moral values. Perhaps if the entire world were to adopt the philosophy of God is dead when in respect to morality, well then, anything goes.

    Works Cited

    Gravil, Richard. Existentialism, edited by Mark Addis, Humanities-Ebooks, LLP,2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=3306074.

    Reynolds, Jack. Understanding Existentialism, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook           Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1900188.

    Gravil, Richard. Existentialism, edited by Mark Addis, Humanities-Ebooks, LLP,2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=3306074.

    Reynolds, Jack. Understanding Existentialism, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook           Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1900188.

  • Existentialism: WIll to Power/Will of God

    Nietzsche's Concept of the Will to Power

    Arguably, existentialism is an interesting philosophy. However, one may not necessarily agree with its worldview to appreciate its art. I refer to it as art because, in my view, philosophy is an art in general, and Nietzsche is one of philosophy’s artists. Moreover, Nietzsche’s will to power is a metaphysical concept. Metaphysics examines the nature of existence, which existentialism attempts to analyze. Flynn explains Nietzsche’s will to power as “the force that moves the universe . . . Nature as a whole is will to power, and it manifests itself in every dimension of existence” (p. 39). Will to power is a difficult concept to fully grasp because Flynn does not develop exactly how Nietzsche defines will and defines power. Further perplexing is how Nietzsche applies will to power to morality.

    Understanding how Nietzsche uses the words will and power may help us understand Nietzsche’s will to power. But, unfortunately, Nietzsche’s exposition of will to power does not exist, as he passed before having the opportunity to expound on the topic entirely. Further adding to the dilemma, according to the author of Nietzsche’s Mirror: The World as Will to Power, Linda L. Williams claims that Nietzsche rarely defines any terms in his writings. Nietzsche never claims a definition of terms but instead speaks in metaphors and aphorisms (p. 15). Although that sounds regrettable, it makes sense towards the existential worldview; after all, how can one define concrete terms if concrete terms deal with the area of absolutes? Moreover, absolutes and concrete terms may contradict the existential point of view that “there are no objective values besides what one creates for oneself” (Friedrich Nietzsche).

    Keeping in mind that existentialism is a method or mode of living and living to analyze what we are in existence, it is essential to remember that it is up to the individual to determine their own identity and essence. Remembering that proposition helps appreciate what Nietzsche is trying to do. Will to power is Nietzsche attempting to understand the essence of existence as he exists concurrently with existence. Since will to power is Nietzsche’s personal interpretation, it is up to anyone who reads it as individuals to interpret their own understanding. Therefore, my interpretation of will to power is Nietzsche speaking of an inexplicable invisible force that drives the will of all existence. What I mean is that, power is action, and any action in motion requires a cause set in motion by will. In other words, will of power is action set in motion by will. Since Nietzsche is speaking of an invisible force as will of power, and I realize that Nietzsche’s principle logic was grounded in humanism and away from anything transcendental and eternal, what if Nietzsche was subconsciously articulating the power of God? To put it another way, what if the will of power is the Will of God?

    Work Cited

    Flynn, Thomas. Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=430845.

    Williams, Linda L. Nietzsche’s Mirror: The World as Will to Power, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1369073.

    Nietzsche, Friedrich. Friedrich Nietzsche. Existentialism. https://myclassroom.apus.edu/d2l/le/enhancedSequenceViewer/49498?url=https%3A%2F%2Ff54cbe36-23a9-4505-85fe-e251f80ec34d.sequences.api.brightspace.com%2F49498%2Factivity%2F5613984%3FfilterOnDatesAndDepth%3D1.

  • Existentialism: Incompatible Conformity

    Conformity

    Part of the meaning of life is to focus on the idea of human mortality. From a divine perspective, immortality is a central issue in resolving the conflict with death. One does not necessarily have to abandon their religious beliefs in the afterlife, but from an existential perspective, if a person gives too much attention to a divine perspective, the person lacks the attention necessary to discover what it means to be a human on a genuine physical planet, instead of an invisible reality. This idea of ignoring divine influence to focus on something more humanistic can become a problem for some. The problem is a consequence of conformity. “For the existentialist, being an individual in our mass society is an achievement rather than a starting point” (Flyn p 30). Individuality is one of the keys to understanding existentialism. Think about it, how can one think for themselves as an individual if they refuse or are incapable of thinking outside of what society has influenced them to accept? Sincerely, individuality is key to existentialism, but I would argue that it is also a critical quality of Americanism. It is a quality that is becoming compromised by an incompatible conformity today.

    Works Cited
    Flynn, Thomas. Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=430845.

  • Justified Truth Belief in the Existence of God

    See the source image

    Concerning knowledge, there are truth claims people believe they know and things they do not know. There is a problem concerning knowledge if people ask themselves what it means to know something and the difference between knowing and not knowing something.  It is therefore insufficient to claim knowledge when one is not aware of what they do not know. Anyone who states a truth claim attempts to persuade someone of something a person believes in their mind as truth. Knowledge in itself becomes the vessel, medium, or tool used to discover what truth is. Knowledge is used analytically and is concerned with articulating what people believe in their minds as truth. Frequently, people practically use the word knowledge loosely in their vocabulary. Assertions and propositions are used as verbs claiming to know something as a truth claim. If a person is wrong about an assertion or proposition, according to justified true belief doctrine, the person did not have knowledge of the matter in its entirety. Primarily, the purpose of this essay is to examine the theory of knowledge and justified true belief. Secondly, to consider if justified true belief applies to the existence of God. The proposition “I know God exists” is analyzed for rationality, and what worldview is more reasonable to account for the logic within the structure of justified true belief as it applies to the proposition of the existence of God.

    Assertions and propositions are similar in that they both have the capacity to declare something as true. The difference between the two is that an assertion puts forward a statement as true, while a proposition also can put a statement forward as true, but its content is open to truth and falsity (Blackburn 34, 387). For example, an assertion carries the expectancy to be true, while a proposition carries suggestion, supposition, or consideration as truth.  Analyzing knowledge requires an acknowledgment of necessary conditions that are sufficient for propositional knowledge. Propositional knowledge examines the knowledge within a proposition. For example, if Alexander the Great knows Aristotle is a philosopher, Alexander the Great has knowledge that Aristotle is a philosopher. Essentially, analyzing knowledge is the attempt to answer the question of what it takes to know something. At this point, it is important to understand a critical distinction between propositional knowledge and knowledge of how, where, when, and acquaintance. Particularly, propositional knowledge is not concerned with how, why, where, when Alexander the Great knows Aristotle. Instead, it is concerned with knowledge of the proposition itself or the subject. The sentence structure is as S knows that P. Alexander the Great is the subject (S) while knowing that Aristotle is a philosopher is the proposition or (P). 

                Traditionally, the conditions of knowledge are relatively basic, containing two conditions:

    “(1) p is true

      (2) S believes that p” (Hetherington 445).

    In this structure, the proposition is true if the subject believes it to be true. On the other hand, if the subject does not believe the proposition to be true, it follows according to the two conditional standards that the proposition is not true. The problem with the two conditional standards is that it is vulnerable to subjectivity. The subject may believe the proposition as truth when the subject claimed as knowledge is objectively false. The subject may also believe the proposition as false when the subject denies the knowledge in the proposition is objectively true. Philosophers realize the mind’s vulnerability to believe error as accuracy. Each person is responsible and must examine why they believe what they believe. Regardless of one’s conclusion, each person remains with the quizzical question of how do I know? On the issue of knowledge, Russian – American writer and philosopher claim that “since man is not omniscient or infallible, you have to discover what you can claim as knowledge and how to prove the validity of your conclusions” (3).

                Philosophers have developed another set of conditions for knowledge called justified true belief (JTB) with three components instead of two, which is as follows:

    “(1) P is true;

      (2) S believes that p;

      (3) S is justified in believing that p” (Ichikawa).

    Most twentieth-century philosophers follow the three-component formula as a starting point to understanding what knowledge is in reality. The three components are also considered as the three conditions. These conditions, truth, belief, and justification, are necessary conditions in propositional logic. Epistemologists may agree that if a conclusion is false, the assertion or propositions is not knowledge. For example, during the 2020 elections, one may say, I know Trump will win. The result is Biden won, and it no longer makes sense to state someone knew Trump would win in 2020; therefore, there was and is no knowledge in the assertion “I know Trump will win in 2020.” Knowledge is valid if and only if the conclusion is true. Knowledge is a noun that, in everyday practical speech, is used loosely. Consequently, without consideration, people usually use knowledge terms overconfident and realize, in the end, they were wrong about their assertions or propositions.

    The second condition seems simple to understand. The general principle in the belief condition is that the subject can only know what the subject believes. Therefore, if the subject does not believe the assertion or proposition the subject is claiming, that subject’s failure to believe prevents proper knowledge. Nonetheless, mere belief is not enough to claim knowledge. Using the earlier election example, believing Trump would win the election did not mean he would win. Neither that the believer knows that he would win. The point is no matter how depth the measure of belief is, the proposition was wrong in the end. No matter how much ambition was in the belief, there was no knowledge since the result was contrary to the subject’s belief. In short, if the proposition is false, yet the subject believes it to be true, in reality, there is no knowledge or truth in the proposition.

    The final component is the justification condition. Justification is a necessary condition to defeat a lucky guess or accidentally arrive at a true belief. For example, suppose the subject is gambling at a casino and is rolling the dice. The subject at the casino believes the slot machine will provide a winning jackpot. By chance, the subject pulls the lever and wins the jackpot, and the subject’s belief is true. But, unfortunately, the subject’s belief is baseless and provides no justified reason for why the subject believed the subject would win. The subject’s belief was a mere guess and not knowledge. As a reminder, the justification condition is introduced to assure that the subject’s belief is not valid by accident or luck.

    What must justification consist of? Ph.D. Matthias Steup writes, “it may be thought that S‘s belief is true not merely because of luck if that belief has a high objective probability of truth, that is, if it is formed or sustained by reliable cognitive processes or faculties” (SEP). Following Steup’s logic, it is reasonable to assert that objectivity and reason are high qualities of the JTB process, especially in the justification condition. For example, a subject proposes knowledge of being burnt if the subject places its hand over the fire for an excessive amount of time. There exist objective factors in this proposition. Factor one; fire is objectively hot. Never under any circumstance is a flame cold.  Factor two; people are vulnerable to the sensation of pain. Although levels of pain are subjective, pain itself is a mutually universal sensation. It is probable that the subject has experienced being burnt by fire or heat and thinks if the subject places its hand over the fire, it will burn the subject. This example reveals objectivity and reason, which lead to all conditions of JTB. The subject believes the fire will burn, and the belief is justified based on high objectivity and sound reason. The end result is true and reveals the subject had acquired knowledge.

    Some modern epistemologists believe that JTB is inadequate to determine knowledge. However, most may agree that the three conditions are necessary for knowledge yet are not necessarily sufficient on a case-by-case basis. The reasoning for the proposition against JTB is based on demonstrations revealed by Edmond Gettier. For example, consider a man and his son are driving through the country and stop for a break. While resting, they notice several items in their view, such as; a tractor, a horse, a combine, a silo, and a barn. The three necessary conditions of JTB are apparent. Moreover, they both notice items they are familiar with through past experiences; therefore, it is acquired knowledge to know what a tractor or barn is. Concerning the tractor, they see the tractor and believe it’s a tractor, and in fact, it is a tractor that equals a JTB. However, unknown to them, the locals set fake barns throughout the county with only one actual barn remaining (Turri 247-259). Since they did not know about the fake barns, they could have easily mistaken one of the fake barns for an authentic barn, but they recognized the true barn accidentally. Epistemologists would not consider this case a JTB but a Gettier case, which defeats a JTB.

    Gettier cases reveal the justification condition susceptible to human fallibility. Moreover, they reveal that even seemingly justified beliefs result in lucky guesses that are incompatible with knowledge. The intent of some epistemologists is not to refute JTB but to modify and repair it. Principally, it is critical to find a way to exclude lucky guesses to determine actual knowledge. One of the methods explained by American Philosopher Linda Zagzebski is adding a fourth justification which becomes JTB+X. The fourth condition prevents the original justification condition from becoming Gettiered. The fourth condition is necessary as Zagzebski cleverly explains that “as long as the property that putatively converts true belief into knowledge is analyzed in such a way that it is strongly linked with the truth, but does not guarantee it, it will always be possible to devise cases in which the link between such a property and the truth is broken but regained by accident” (69).

    Since justified true belief is applicable to determine knowledge, is it only applicable to propositional logic, or is it applicable to belief systems such as worldviews or religious beliefs? For example, is it justified as knowledge to assert or propose that one knows God exists? The complexity perhaps is that someone is claiming knowledge of something that is not tangible or metaphysically obvious to the senses. Philosophy of religion offers some insight through the school of Reformed epistemology (RE) as it concerns itself with the theory of knowledge relating to the belief in God. Although reformed epistemology is contrary to evidentialism, that belief in God is justified by evidence alone; RE goes beyond physical evidence into the realm of metaphysics and epistemology. Thus, for example, RE believes knowledge of God is universal and innate within all people. Although scriptural reference is available, RE are inspired by the writings of 16th century reformed theologian John Calvin who wrote that “there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead . . . so thoroughly has this common conviction possessed the mind, so firmly is it stamped on the breasts of all men. Since then, there never has been, from the very first, any quarter of the globe, any city, any household even, without religion, this amounts to a tacit confession, that a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart” (ICR).

    Based on Calvin’s writings and reformed epistemologists, a presupposition for RE is that knowledge of God is innate. At this point, some may consider this a ridiculous concept since RE are arguing for knowledge of an immaterial existing being. But is it genuinely far-fetched since many immaterial ideas such as truth, beliefs, logic, reason, and morality are irrefutably accepted? Truth, logic, reason, and morality are arguably innate faculties of the human being and are used and accepted as existing immaterially daily to our convenience. These are innate faculties all have knowledge of; not just knowledge, but innate knowledge. The casing point is that innate knowledge is possible. Not only possible, but innate immaterial innate knowledge is possible; therefore, excluding the possibility that an immaterial being exists, such as God, is not an invalid idea. Neither is the idea that if God exists, He imparted an innate knowledge of Himself in every human, considering the rationality provided by Calvin and reformed epistemologists.

    Of these innate immaterial ideas, consider the laws of logic. They are necessary for any assertion, argument, or proposition to carry any meaning. So, for example, in the law of non-contradiction, a statement such as “God is an immaterial existing being” could also mean “God is not an immaterial existing being.” Without the law of non-contradiction, any statement could have an opposite or arbitrary meaning. Without the laws of logic as a whole, meaning and knowledge become impossible to receive or articulate. But why are the laws of logic relevant to the idea of innate knowledge of God’s existence? The answer is because these ideas inevitably lead to a belief or a worldview. The proposition that knowledge of God is innate and a justified true belief stems from a biblical worldview, compared to those who deny the proposition and accept a non-biblical worldview.

                Consider the following deductive argument based on biblical principles:

    1. Through the bible, God reveals Himself.
    2. God reveals Himself as a logical being.
    3. The laws of logic exist as a reflection of how God thinks.
    4. God created humans with the capacity to think according to the laws of logic.
    5. Logic and its laws are innate in all humans, evidenced by their way of thinking.
    6. It logically follows that God’s knowledge is innate and transcendent to all humans.

    This rational structure also creates accountability for a belief system of the laws of logic. This reasoning creates an absolute standard as a basis for justifying the existence of the laws of logic; otherwise, how does one account for the existence of the laws of logic without an absolute standard? Without a universal standard, an explanation for the existence of the laws of logic is arbitrary. Without God as the absolute standard for the laws of logic, one may find it necessary to deny immaterial existence or appeal to some form of skepticism. The other option is to implicitly borrow or steal from the biblical worldview to account for the use of the laws of logic to make a case against God’s existence or that belief in God is irrational. In this case, believing the existence of God is an irrational idea; what is meant is, that knowledge of God’s existence is not a justified true belief.

    Nevertheless, if what is necessary for a justified true belief in the existence of God or to propose that someone knows God exists are the three necessary conditions; truth, belief, and justification, then by the reasoning mentioned in this essay, all conditions meet the standard. Corresponding with Steup, a high degree of objectivity and reason justify the truth that God exists as the absolute standard of immaterial ideas such as knowledge and logic. Therefore, those that propose they know God exists should not consider their statement irrational but instead should consider it a justified true belief; congruent with the position of Dr. Deane Peter Baker’s interpretation of American Philosopher Alvin Plantinga “If the A/C model is true, and God has in fact installed in us a sensus divinitatis, then holders of such beliefs are justified in their beliefs because they violate no epistemic duties in doing so, and their beliefs are also warranted because they are the result of a properly functioning epistemic faculty that is aimed at truth” (78).

    It is impractical to assume one can communicate without truth claims. One of the problems that lead to some believing there are no truth claims stems from the attempt to define knowledge. Within the theory of knowledge, epistemologists attempt to reveal how many suppose they have knowledge and truth when in reality they may not. Without analyzing knowledge, it becomes difficult to analyze one’s beliefs in the form of introspection. Everyone who communicates using truth claims believes they have truth in their mind, not realizing what they claim as knowledge is inaccurate. The study of metaphysics and epistemology have become instruments to discover what conditions are necessary to define knowledge and attain truth. Necessary conditions for knowledge exist, and modern epistemologists systematically use the doctrine of justified true belief to assure someone has justifiably acquired knowledge without accident or chance. Explicitly, JTB applies to assertions and propositions concerning God’s existence or knowledge of God. Knowledge of God is, therefore, a justified true belief.

    Works Cited

    Blackburn, Simon. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 2016.

    Print.

    Hetherington, Stephen. Metaphysics and Epistemology: A Guided Anthology. John Wiley &

    Sons. West Sussex. 2014. Print.

    Rand, Ayn. Philosophy: Who Needs It. New American Library. New York.1984. Print. Ichikawa. Jenkins, Joshua. “The Analysis of Knowledge.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

    2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/.

    Steup, Matthias. Epistemology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2020.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#KnowFact.

    Turri, John. “Is Knowledge Justified True Belief?” Synthese, vol. 184, no. 3, 2012, pp. 247-259.

    ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/is-knowledge-justified-true-belief/docview/1111803075/se-2?accountid=8289, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9773-8.

    Zagzebski, Linda. “The Inescapability of Gettier Problems.” The Philosophical Quarterly

    (1950-), vol. 44, no. 174, [Oxford University Press, University of St. Andrews, Scots Philosophical Association], 1994, pp. 65–73, https://doi.org/10.2307/2220147.

    Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion Book One: The Knowledge of God Naturally

    Implanted in the Human Mind. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.iv.html.

    Baker, Deane-Peter. “Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology: What’s the Question?” International

    Journal for Philosophy of Religion, vol. 57, no. 2, Springer, 2005, pp. 77–103, doi:10.1007/s11153-004-1681-8.

  • Response to a Professor’s Definition of Free Will

    Yes, Free Will Exists - Scientific American Blog Network

    Definition – Free will = the mental capacity to make choices, even if the freedom to do so is not available.

    Professor,

    I like the definition you gave of free will. The mental capacity to make choices even if the freedom to choose is unavailable. I think that is a clever definition. Those few words can inspire a long in-depth discussion. I imagine myself in a circumstance where there is no situation to decide anything. It is a challenging mental exercise because I cannot help but make cognitive decisions as long as I can think. So, your definition implies to me that the “mental capacity to make decisions” is an innate faculty within all people for us to use to make decisions. In other words, “the will.” The will then is an innate faculty within all humans used to make decisions. Now, if the will always have the mental capacity to make decisions regardless of freedom to do so, then at what point is it ever truly constrained. If nothing can stop the thinking process, then nothing can stop cognitive decisions. If nothing can stop cognitive decisions, then the will is always free; therefore, it seems irrelevant to call the will free since the will has always been free by default. However, even in that sense, the will may not exist as naturally free as some think.

    Considering the argument for and against free will, the exact chemical makeup of our brains and how we exist as conscience is uncertain. What is more certain is that we make choices. Many people are determined to use the word free with the word will, but why? Is it difficult to think of natural attributes of the will as merely the will? For example, I can claim I have a will. I do not necessarily have to state; I have a free will. Regardless of opportunities, limitations, oppression, or violent oppression, the will is still free to decide so long as there is mental capacity. So long as mental capacity exists, then the will is naturally free. If we take the position that the will is at times not free because of circumstantial limitations, we have to accept that the will is universally in bondage because there is never a full measure of decisional freedom in anyone’s life. Absolute freedom of the will only makes sense if there exists a full measure of life with no decisional constraints; this has never been the case for anyone and never will; therefore, free will, as most people claim it, does not exist; there exists only “the will.”

  • Moral Objectivity: Synopsis of William Lane Craig’s Moral Argument

    What Is Objective Morality & What Can It Teach Us? | BetterHelp

    When some read William Lane Craig’s (WLC) quotation or a similar statement regarding the inability of people’s goodness without God, they assume it means that those who do not believe in God’s existence are incapable of goodness. But, for argument’s sake, let’s accept that goodness here is defined as love and pleasure without the distribution of pain and suffering. With that basic definition, we can think of people we’ve known who are theists and atheists, and some seem to have greater moral values than others. For example, some have encountered atheists who were moral, ethical, and loving members of society. On the other hand, those same individuals may have encountered some whose company was not as pleasurable. The same can be said about theists as well. Based on that rationality, it is safe to assume that WLC’s assertion should not become misinterpreted as claiming atheists are not moral people because they lack faith in God’s existence.

    When WLC states that “we cannot truly be good without God,” he is not asserting that those who do not believe in God cannot perform goodness or are judged as a person absent of goodness. Instead, WLC is arguing a case for objective moral values, duties, and accounting for their objective existence in our reality. WLC distinguishes between subjective morality and objective morality. If morality is objective, its values such as good and evil are right and wrong regardless of whether anyone agrees with values being right or wrong. If morality is subjective, then as WLC states, morality is merely a “human convention,” making moral values subjective and unaccountable to anything concrete. I’ll add further that moral and ethical values become a relative construct used arbitrarily and defeating the purpose of justice without moral objectivity.

    WLC’s position is understood in the following deductive argument:

    P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

    P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

    Conclusion. Therefore, it follows logically that God does exist.

    Suppose someone denies premise one but argues for premise two that objective moral values exist, but God’s existence is not necessary to believe in moral objectivity. Then, according to the deductive argument, to deny the existence of God is to deny the existence of moral objectivity. The deductive argument is a logical formula of persuading the thinker to accept that, at the very least, it makes sense to acknowledge moral objectivity is valid if God exists. God’s existence creates an absolute standard for the existence of moral objectivity; otherwise, without the existence of God, morality becomes a “human convention” that inevitably leads to moral relativism or plurality.

    Works Cited

    Craig, Lane, William. The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality. Reasonable Faith. Foundations 5 9-12. 1997. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-indispensability-of-theological-meta-ethical-foundations-for-morality.

  • Plato’s Theory of Forms

    Can You Please Explain Plato's Theory of Forms in Simple Terms? | by Charles Gray | The Academy of You | Medium

    As a premise, it does not make sense to believe that there was no existence at any reference. Logic dictates that something cannot come from nothing; therefore, something has always existed in some way, shape, or form. Plato’s theory of forms is an attempt to understand the nature of reality. Understanding the theory of forms is developed from an objectivist approach. Relativity from a philosophical approach is incomprehensible to Forms since relativism denies claims to ontology and objectivism. Theory of forms pre-supposes absolutes, universals, objectivity, ontology, truth, and knowledge. A denial of any truth claims becomes incompatible with Plato’s world view of forms. It would not make sense to suggest that existence has always existed while at the same time believing the idea valid ontologically only for whoever believes it. The concept itself becomes unintelligible and defeats the purpose of argumentation. A developed and comprehensible world-view is critical to understanding the nature of existence relating to thought and being. In addition, the theory of forms has become a philosophical vessel intended to provide general knowledge. This short essay intends to give a synopsis and interpretation of Plato’s idea of Forms and realize a reason for relevant application in daily lives.

    A common misinterpretation of Plato’s Forms is that they exist in another world. In the Parmenides, Plato characterizes Forms as the reality of all things “Is there such a thing as health? Of course there is. Can you see it? Of course not. This does not mean that the Forms are occult entities floating somewhere else in another world, a Platonic heaven” (Perl 28). It is a sensible idea to think Forms exist in another world since Plato describes the existence of something people cannot experience in the physical world. Understandably, it is a difficult concept to grasp because Forms are not sensible to the senses but sensible to the intellect. Reason and rationality is the medium to make sense of the Forms. Forms are the essences of what exists. A Form is the essence of a physically existing object or idea. For example, a dog is an object, and “beauty” is an idea. There is not one Form for all dogs and one Form for all that is considered beautiful. Each Form has its specific essence. “The Special relationship between a Form and its essence is captured in two principles:

    1. Each essence is the essence of exactly one Form.
    2. Each Form has (or is) exactly one essence” (Silverman).

    The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines essence as “the basic or primary element in the being of a thing; the thing’s nature, or that without which could not be what it is (Blackburn 161). Thus, applying the definition of essence to Plato’s Forms reveals to the thinker that Forms are ontological. If Forms are ontological, then they must exist as immaterial, timeless, unchangeable, and perfect; therefore, Forms are the essential immaterial, universal standard of any physical manifestation. This definition is valid if one presupposes that all physical existence is an imperfect object, property, or idea. Actual knowledge is not gained by way of imperfection; therefore, the actual knowledge of a substance is learned in the idea of its Form. Physical existence then becomes a mere copy or imitation of its perfect existence found in its essential Form.

    Plato’s cave allegory is a comparable practical reflection of imperfect reality existing concurrently with a perfect reality. The allegory describes a group of people who lived their lives chained to a wall. In front of them is a blank wall and behind them is a fire and in front of the fire is a lifted platform with people walking and carrying objects. The people walking in front of the fire create shadows on the wall facing the people chained to the wall, unable to move their heads. The chained group believes the shadows as they perceive them are actual reality, but their perception misrepresents the real world. A “Forms” interpretation of the cave allegory is that their reality is incomplete, but there is a higher level of reality they are unaware of; thus, there is an actual world outside the cave and real physical people depicted in its shadows.  In application, physical existence is comparable to the cave, and people perceive it as reality. In the cave allegory and theory of forms, Plato suggests a greater reality exists concurrently, and understanding is necessary for proper knowledge.

    Plato’s theory of forms is a metaphysical and epistemological method of attempting to understand the nature of reality. The whatness of existence is a critical question for anyone seeking absolute knowledge. The theory of forms presents an intelligible method of examining the essence of all things and the nature of reality. Like the allegory of the cave, since the physical world is a mere shadow of a greater reality, the thinker is left to intelligibly analyze what the higher reality is and how it exists. The physical realm is imperfect and changing consistently, while the realm of forms is the perfect, unchanging standard of what our perception of reality is. Some may not recognize how critical Plato’s philosophy is. Yet, it is critical for any who desires to know why they believe what they believe to be true. The quest for knowledge is never in vain because knowledge is everything. Incorrect knowledge is not knowledge at all but a mere opinion. In closing, 20th century Western Philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote, “what is the difference between knowledge and opinion? The man who has knowledge has knowledge of something, that is to say, of something that exists, for what does not exist is nothing” (120).

    Works Cited

    Perl, Eric. Thinking Being: Introduction to Metaphysics in the Classical Tradition: Introduction to Metaphysics in the Classical Tradition, BRILL, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1640970.

    Silverman, Allan. Plato’s Middle Period Metaphysics and Epistemology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2014. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-metaphysics/index.html#note-10.

    Blackburn, Simon. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 2016. Print.

    Russell, Bertrand. The History of Western Philosophy. Simon & Schuster. New York. 1972. Print.

  • Is Abraham’s role similar in Christianity as in Islam?

    This week’s Phil 410 article states that “Christianity is linked to Judaism through Abraham.” Although there is a true connotation regarding the origin of the Christian religion, I would rephrase it to “Christianity is linked to Abraham through Judaism.” Abraham is the one chosen by God as the father of many descendants, including the nation of Israel, through his son Isaac. The religion of Judaism claims its roots in Abraham and Isaac. Through Abraham was born Israel’s kings, specifically King David, whose lineage as king is linked in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Judaism predates Islam and Christianity and prophesies the Messiah, believed to be Jesus Christ by the Christians. Jesus’ genealogy in the book of Matthew is traced back to King David, Abraham, and Isaac with no mention of Ishmael; confirmed in the scriptures:

    Act 13:23  Of this man’s offspring, God has brought Israel a Savior, Jesus, as he promised. 

    The offspring in Acts 13:23 is from King David commemorating that Jesus is the offspring “Son of David.”

    Heb 11:17  By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, Heb 11:18  of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 

    NOTE: The writer of Hebrews in 11:18 is referencing Genesis 21:12 “Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 

    Muslims believe it was not Isaac but Ishmael, Abraham’s firstborn son, who God requested as a sacrifice. Changing the character from Isaac to Ishmael changes the dynamic entirely to favor the Arabic nation and formulate an entirely different God without the Son of God or the Holy Spirit to complete the triune deity of the Christian religion.

    “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named” The offspring in this verse is a prophecy of the Messiah Jesus Christ.

    Mat 1:1  The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Mat 1:2  Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers.

    Abraham’s role is only similar to both religions in that they are considered monotheistic. The introduction of Abraham’s two sons presents an extreme dynamic that creates two entirely different Gods. The God of Islam Allah, and the God of Christianity, the I AM Godhead three in one.

    Works Cited

    Phil410. Abraham in Islam & Christianity.

    Holy Bible. English Standard Version. Reformation Trust Publishing. 2017. Print.

  • Islam’s Misrepresentation of the deity of Christ

    Islam’s Misrepresentation of the deity of Christ

    One of the first things that grasped my attention was from the “God of Islam” article where it read that the bible “has been corrupted and therefore cannot be considered reliable.” The reason of interest rests with the similarities between Islam, Jehovah’s Witness (JW), and Mormonism. I realize it may seem strange to compare these three; however, what is in common is the basis of creating a new bible in addition to the Holy Bible. All three religions use the Holy Bible as a premise to create a new one. Founders of the JW and Mormonism, Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Smith, believe the Holy Bible had become unreliable or in some way corrupted through the years. Long story short, they both believe God gave them divine revelation to create new translations or additions to lead people to the truth.

    The founder of the Muslim religion “Muhammad,” was 25 years old when he received his divine revelation in a cave (McAnalle). Equally, Muhammad falls in line with Charles Russell and Joseph Smith, who believe God gave them divine revelation while alone with no witnesses to preach the truth to people due to biblical inerrancy. Another critical issue in common with the three self-proclaimed prophets is their teachings influence a distortion of the deity of Jesus Christ. JW and Mormons teach Jesus is a created angel, while Islam teaches Jesus was a prophet of God but inferior to Muhammad. The Jews are in a different dynamic, which believes Jesus Christ was a blasphemous false prophet in every respect. At least the other three placed Jesus in some form of a divine hierarchy.

    The misrepresentation of the deity of Christ in the Islamic religion is pre-conceived in the beginning with Adam and Eve. In the Christian religion, Jesus Christ is sent to live a life of righteousness for the sake of sinners who cannot fulfill the commandments of God. People who believe in the Gospel of Christ are then forgiven for their sins and are justified as righteous for their faith in Jesus Christ. In the Islamic religion, there is no need for a savior because humanity is not in a fallen state since Adam and Eve’s disobedience; in other words, the doctrine of “Original Sin” is invalid. Instead of requiring a mediator for forgiveness, Islam teaches that “when Adam and Eve repented and sought God’s mercy, they were forgiven and returned to a state of harmony with God” (Hewer). The “state of harmony” I will suggest is the inception of restoring the image and likeness of God in humanity. Contrastingly, the Jews are still waiting for their prophet prophesied in the Old Testament.

    Works Cited

    Phil410. The God of Islam. https://myclassroom.apus.edu/d2l/le/enhancedSequenceViewer/31736?url=https%3A%2F%2Ff54cbe36-23a9-4505-85fe-e251f80ec34d.sequences.api.brightspace.com%2F31736%2Factivity%2F3139626%3FfilterOnDatesAndDepth%3D1.

    McAnally, Bryan. Indispensable Guide to Practically Everything: World Religions and What People Believe, Guideposts, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=3118778.

    Hewer, Chris. Understanding Islam, Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=3306168.