Spring 2010 Philosophy of Human Nature Lecture Notes Part 2

2/16

Additional Thoughts on Epicurus

Tranquility vs. Quietism -- You can be a tranquil activist.

Asceticism and the heightening of pleasure through mindfulness and savoring.

Developing his theory to account for contrasting views of the self. Which views are incompatible with Epicureanism?

Note: Additions to person methods list.

Provisional assessments...large class discussion.

Introduction to Personal Identity

• sameness makers -
• change of identity: qualitative vs. numerical. (116 food for thought)

Major Theories of Self

• Illusion
• Substance: Body
• Substance: Soul
• Psychic Continuity

Tracking problems with each.

Group Exercise: Initial exploration of Identity

What do we want a philosophical theory of identity to do? Is our identity constructed by the mind or based on some deeper facts about the continuity or permanence or some reality (body, soul, memory)? What role do each of these candidates play?

Keep track of results and methods used. Be self-conscious about applying philosophical methods, testing hypotheses, and helping each other be clear by asking sympathetic questions. If you feel like the discussion is getting random, try to get clarification.

2/18

Personal Identity

Parfit & Brain transplant thought experiments

"Brownson" -- what question does this thought experiment help us test? Do the experiment.

Division cases -- half your brain in each of two hosts. What happens to you? Consider Parfit's three possibilities: p. 224-225.

Can personal identity be a matter of degree?

Dennett's Narrative thought experiment: Who Am I?

Basic story: Bizzare Mission. Calls his brain Yorrick, body Hamlet. Re-embodied. New body: Fortinbras. Computer back up: Hubert

Group Exercise

What view of personal identity, if any, does Dennett's thought experiment demonstrate?

Introduction to Stoicism

We'll just work through the first three points of the Enchiridion to begin our consideration of Stoicism.

2/23

Mid-term today. No class notes

2/25

Epictetus and Stoicism

Field of Philosophy	Stoicism - Epictetus - Enchiridion	Epicureanism - Epicurus - Letter to Menoeceus, et al
Metaphysics	All reality corporeal. Intelligence is irreducible and real. Seen in order. Belief in rationality of universe; wholism	Democritean atomism; only evidence for material objects, but recognition of idea of gods.
Theology	Pantheism - theos/matter, theos in all life, in reason, rationality in nature. Older stoicism believed in cyclical conflagration.	If there are gods, they aren't concerned about us. No worry of retribution.
Teleology	Virtue (care of the hegimonikon) is the end of life and should satisfy the demand for happiness.	Pleasure is the good. Virture is instrumental in helping us understand how to pursue pleasure and a condition for successful attainment of pleasure in life.

Issues in Stoicism:

• Causes of our unhappiness
• Pursuing the adjustment of our emotions to our understanding of the world
• The independence of the hegemonikon (rational ruling principle in us)

Siderits reconstruction of Buddhist position on no-self

Key points:

1. Buddhist claims there is no self because: 1. self is impermanent and 2. we do not have complete control of a self.

2. Support from analysis of the Five Skandhas (lit. "bundles")

• Rupa: anything corporeal or physical;
• Feeling: sensations of pleasure, pain and indifference; (only, other emotions under volition)
• Perception: those mental events whereby one grasps the sensible characteristics of a perceptible object; e.g., the seeing of a patch of blue color, the hearing of the sound of thunder;
• Volition: the mental forces responsible for bodily and mental activity, for example, hunger, attentiveness, and
• Consciousness: the awareness of physical and mental states. (Siderits 35-36)

Exhaustiveness Claim

• There is no more to the person than the five skandhas (the exhaustiveness claim).

Note basic argument on p. 39.

Argument from control, starts on p. 46.

Maybe the "I" is an executive function

problems with this view.

An entity cannot operate on itself (the anti-reflexivity principle).

Could just be shifting coalition.

Support for this view: Questions of King Milinda - nominalism -- words as "convenient designators"

Conventional vs. Ultimate truths.

Summary of Siderits view: "We are now in a position to return to the dispute over the exhaustiveness claim and the Buddha's two arguments for non-self. Both arguments relied on there being no more to the person than the five skandhas. The opponent objected to the argument from control on the grounds that our ability to exercise some degree of control over all the skandhas shows that there must be more to us than the five skandhas. The response was that there could be control over all the skandhas if it were a shifting coalition of skandhas that performed the executive function. But the opponent challenged this response on the grounds that there would then be many distinct I's, not the one we have in mind when we say that I can dislike and seek to change all the skandhas. We can now see how the Buddhist will respond. They will say that ultimately there is neither one controller nor many, but conventionally it is one and the same person who exercises control over first one skandha and then another. This is so because the controller is a conceptual fiction. It is useful for a causal series of skandhas to think of itself as a person, as something that exercises some control over its constituents. Because it is useful, it is conventionally true. This is how we have learned to think of ourselves. But because this person, this controller, is a conceptual fiction, it is not ultimately true that there is one thing exercising control over different skandhas at different times. Nor is it ultimately true that it is different controllers exercising control over them. The ultimate truth is just that there are psychophysical elements in causal interaction. This is the reality that makes it useful for us to think of Ives as persons who exercise control. Our sense of being something that exists over and above the skandhas is an illusion. But it is a useful one. " 64

3/2

Lots of Selves: Bloom, "First Person Plural"

"Many researchers now believe, to varying degrees, that each of us is a community of competing selves, with the happiness of one often causing the misery of another."

-modular view of mind.

-Fodor: "If, in short, there is a community of computers living in my head, there had also better be somebody who is in charge; and, by God, it had better be me!"

-"The multiplicity of selves becomes more intuitive as the time span increases. Social psychologists have found certain differences in how we think of ourselves versus how we think of other people—for instance, we tend to attribute our own bad behavior to unfortunate circumstances, and the bad behavior of others to their nature. But these biases diminish when we think of distant past selves or distant ftiture selves; we see such selves the way we see other people."

-dissociative-identity disorder - Sybil '73 and '76. therapists suit - 120 personalities, including a duck. Maybe this disorder is an extreme form of normal multiplicity of selves.

-fiction and self - openness to more selves. -imaginary friends.

-Self-binding: Getting strategic with your bad selves.

-"The theory of multiple selves offers a different perspective. If struggles over happiness involve clashes between distinct internal selves, we can no longer be so sure that our conflicting judgments over time reflect irrationality or error. There is no inconsistency between someone's anxiously hiking through the Amazon wishing she were home in a warm bath and, weeks later, feeling good about being the sort of adventurous soul who goes into the rain forest. In an important sense, the person in the Amazon is not the same person as the one back home safely recalling the experience, just as the person who honestly believes that his children are the great joy in his life might not be the same person who finds them terribly annoying when he's actually with them. "

-libertarian paternalism

Introduction to the problem of Free Will

1. Evoking the experience of free will

Discussion.

• Situations in which free will seems especially prominent
• Situations in which free will seems especially problematic

2. Presupposition in the discussion of free will: What would have to be true about the world for us to have free will?

First, define free will. Consider two possible starting points:

1. Human agents act outside of causal influence...
2. Human agents experience choice in a way that they characterize has "free"...

Notice the different "burdens" each of these starting points.

We'll come back to the various positions on this topic, but take notes on them as part of your own background preparation.

3. Basic Positions

• Hard Determinism

Seems to be supported by general knowledge of physical world, but leads to puzzles with our intuitions, especially about responsibility. Where is the self in determinism? Can my mental states exert causal power on myself.

• Indeterminism

Particle physics seems to suggest that there is indeterminism in events at a very small scale physical matter(if haven't heard of [Schrodenger's Cat], now's your chance). But would random change really be enough to account for free will. Free will isn't random, after all.

• Soft Determinism (Compatibilism)

This one starts out counter-intuitive to most people. How can determinism and free will be compatible?

Versions include "traditional" -- Action caused by agent and not forced and "Deep self" -- Action caused by agent's authentic desire.

Problem: R1 105: hot dog story

Criteria for soft compatibilits to call an act free: 1) action caused by will of agent; 2) action not forced

• Libertarianism

Human agents have special causal powers (agent causation) that determine their free actions.

3/4

Stace's defense of compatibilism

1. Philosophers who deny free will don't act that way.

2. Thesis: Free will dispute is a verbal dispute. Example.

3. Free will shouldn't be define as "indeterminism".

"Language Analysis"

JONES: I once went without food for a week. SMITH: Did you do that of your own free will? JONES: No. I did it because I was lost in a desert and could find no food.

GANDHI: I once fasted for a week. SMITH: Did you do that of your own free will? GANDHI: Yes. I did it because I wanted to compel the British Government to give India its independence.

JUDGE: Did you steal the bread of your own free will? STACE: Yes. I stole it because I was hungry.

JUDGE: Did you steal the bread of your own free will? STACE: No. I stole because my employer threatened to beat me if I did not.

JUDGE: Did you sign this confession of your own free will? PRISONER: No. I signed it because the police beat me up.

What distinguishes usages in which we say someone is free from saying they are not free?

Criterion can't be determinism since there are causal influences in all cases.

124 "The free acts are all caused by desires, or motives, or by some sort of internal psychological states of the agent's mind. The unfree acts, on the other hand, are all caused by physical forces or physical conditions, outside the agent."

3/16

Introduction to Buddhism

• The Four Noble Truths

1 There is suffering.

Existential suffering: "The frustration, alienation, and despair that result from the realization of our own mortality" (19)

1. Normal pain.
2. Suffering from impermanence.
3. Suffering from conditions - refers to suffering from the effects of karma, ones' own and others.

2 There is the origination of suffering: suffering comes into existence in dependence on causes.

First of 12 links: Ignorance: Ignorance of impermanence, of suffering, of nonself.

Note the chain of causal connection advanced on p. 22 of Siderits: ignorance ultimate causes suffering, but the intermediate steps are important.

3 There is the cessation of suffering: all future suffering can be prevented by becoming aware of our ignorance and undoing the effects of it.

4 There is a path to the cessation of suffering.

8 fold path. importance of meditation (p. 24)

Group Discussion

• Problems and issues with suffering: What kinds of suffering are there? For Buddhists, for you. [Distinquish good/bad, nec/unnec, etc.] Which kinds matter to the Buddhist?

• Dependent Origin: (p. 22) what is it? Our cosmic and existential condition. Compare to alienation through original sin.

• Cessation of suffering: meditation, (non)self-discovery. [Need to assess this more in light of Discourse on Mindfulness and the Eight Fold path (See wiki page Noble Eight Fold Path)

Enlightenment and the Paradox of Liberation

Nirvana is literally "extinction of self" even "annihilation" - What could this mean if there's no self?

Distinction between the state of the enlightened person between enlightenment and death vs. after death. First, is "cessation with remainder," second is "cessation without remainder" (again, compare natural/metaphysical readings)

Paradox of Liberation

1 Liberation is inherently desirable.

2 Selfish desires prevent us from attaining liberation.

3 In order to attain liberation one must train oneself to live without selfish desires.

4 One does not engage in deliberate action unless one desires the foreseen result of the action.

3/18

Buddhist Ethics

1. The nature of nirvana

Samples of texts in which paradoxical reasoning is practiced:

Recall distinction bt. conventional and ultimate truth

71: Point about where the fire goes when it is extinct: "The question does not fit the case."

• Arguments against the "ineffability of nirvana"

Ineffability would imply that no truth can be uttered as ultimate. That's not the case in Buddhism.

• Arguments against the "punctualist" or "annihilationst" view. Is nirvana living in the present?

Problems with that view: still conventionally true that there is a self.

Pain suffering, and joy are still "at stake" in one's experience.

-77: example of socialization of children as "persons" - not a bad thing in itself, but has negative consequences. (note: this gives us another way to think about existential suffering.)

• Nirvana as an achieved and integrated awareness of the relative importance of each standpoint for truth. "unlearning the myth of self, while keeping good practices" -- grounding obligations to self / non-self.

2. The nature of obligations to others

Answer on three levels

First - we should obey moral rules because they reflect karmic laws. And we should do that to win release from rebirth. Limit of this is that you have to believe in karma and the motivation is limited to self-interest.

Second - Doctrine of the three klesas - greed, hatred and delusion. negative feedback loop, therefore need for right speech, right conduct, right livelihood. (Note that for Buddhists, you don't practice virtue because it's the right thing to do, but because it allows you to promote well-being.) Motivation at this level is to attain the liberating insight into the true nature of the self.

Third, we should be moral because all suffering is ultimately equal.

80: "This argument will not claim that being moral is a means to some other end we might want, such as good rebirth or nirvana. Instead it will claim that if we properly understand what it is that we say we want, we will see that we must want to promote the welfare of others."

Read passage on 81 and argument on 82. Ultimately, the only reason you would not dedicate yourself to alleviating suffering when possible is that you are ignorant of the ultimate truth of non-self and karmic (moral) causation.

3/23

Is moral responsibility compatible with determinism?

Harry Frankfurt, "Alternative Possibilities and Moral Responsibility"

1. Does the principle of alternative possibilities conflict with the view that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism?

Principle of Alternative Possibilities;

A person is morally responsible for an action only if they could have done otherwise.

Thesis: The principle is false.

Strategy: develop examples of situations in which a person may do something in circumstances which leave him no alternative and yet we would hold that person responsible for their actions.

1. Jones1 decides to do X and coincidentally is coerced to do it, though the coercion is not felt. (no coercion, moral resp)

2. Jones2 made an earlier decision to do X, but the fear of coercion is what he responds to in doing X. (coercion, no moral resp)

3. Jones3 decides to do X and is coerced to do it. J3 would have done whatever he was coerced to do. (coercion, moral resp) Read 163.

4. Black and Jones4. Black is ready to defeat Jones4's initial preferences, but he never actually has to. Jones4 "could not have done otherwise" yet he is fully morally responsible for his act.

Even if a person could not have done otherwise, it doesn't follow that he acted because he could not have done otherwise.

Revised Principle of Alternative Possibilities;

A person is not morally responsible for what he has done if he did it only because he could not have done otherwise.

Frankfort claims this revised principle is compatible with determinism. As long as "some" of the reasons that explain the action allow for alternative possibilities,

The relationship between truth and freedom

Examine evidence of free will in these cases:

"I did ______ because it was the right thing to do."

"I have to follow my conscience."

"I have no choice but to stand up for my principles."

Is freewill a matter of degree?

• Diminished capacity and free will

3/25

The Greater Discourse on Mindfulness

We'll use this text to get a sense of the meaning of mindfulness, but also because it adds some useful detail on attachment and craving, the 4 noble truths and noble 8 fold path. We'll also take a few minutes to line up philosophical/religious points of view on human flourishing to pose some questions.

Things to notice:

-mindfulness as adjustment of reactions to internal and external stimuli

-presumption of mindfulness -- without practice and self-conscious effort we will not be sufficiently self-aware to promote our enlightenment.

-note the discussion of "full awareness" of body (p. 44-46, read top of 46)

-4 Noble Truths - p. 51 - note discussion of craving

-Noble 8 fold path

Relation of Philosophical/Religious Points of View to Human Flourish

-see diagram from class.

3/30

Evidence Illusion Theory of Free Will

Chapters 1 and 3 from Daniel Wegner, The Illusion of Consciousness

Main topics:

• "The mechanisms underlying the experience of will are themselves a fundamental topic of scientific study. We should be able to examine and understand what creates the experience of will and what makes it go away. This means, though, that conscious will is an illusion. It is an illusion in the sense that the experience of consciously willing an action is not a direct indication that the conscious thought has caused the action."

Experience of Conscious Will - consider examples of illusion of will, such the video game demo program.

alien hand syndrome, table-turning, hypnotic involuntariness.

4 possibilities from doing/not doing and Feeling of Doing / No Feeling of Doing: Normal Vol/Automatism/Illusion of Control/Normal Action

distinction between "empirical will" - causality of the person's conscious thoughts as established by scientific analysis of co-variation with person's behavior and "phenomenal will" - the person's reported experience of will.

Perceptions of Causal Agency -- Heider and Simmel's dysfunctional family of geometric figures. 1944 [Theory of Mind]

[background: Libet 1985: "Libet found that the conscious decision to act came 200 milliseconds before the action. but that the associated brain activity started about 550 milliseconds before the action."]

intentions, beliefs, desires, and plans.

Chapter 3 - The Experience of Will

Three principles that contribute to our perception of conscious will:

Priority Principle - I Spy study.

The Consistency Principle "When people do what they think they were going to do, there exists consistency between thought and act, and the experience of will is enhanced." -phenomenon of insight supports this, because it involves inconsistency bt thought and action. Interesting, we don't think of insights as willed. -goes on to cite examples of "detachment" in expert performance [also fits with flow]

The Exclusivity Principle - "People discount the causal influence of one potential cause if there are others available. ... Applied to the experience of will, this principle suggests that people will be particularly sensitive to the possibility that there are other causes of an action besides their own thoughts." 91

subsequent chapters discuss automatism, automatic writing, ouija boards, dowsing rods, etc. crazy stuff

I'll cover critical responses in class and then we'll focus our discussion.

4/1

No class.

4/6

The Nature of Religion and Religious Truth

Back to Logos, Theos, and Mythos

• Theos typically requires belief in the truth of claims about supernatural processes or beings. Similar to Logos (Philosophy/science) in this respect, but contemporary religious believers vary widely in the way they hold their beliefs. Consider diverse claims of validity for religious knowledge.

Defining Religion

• Religion -- "A religion is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth." basedn on Clifford Geertz.Religion as a Cultural System, 1973. Cited in Wikipedia

• In Scot Atran's In Gods We Trust, a recent work on evolutionary explanations of religion:

"(1) a community's costly and hard-to-fake commitment (2) to a counterfactual and counterintuitive world of supernatural agents (3) who master people's existential anxieties, such as death and deception. " p. 4

Faith and Reason - The problem and some solutions:

Need to bring reason into interaction with faith: either by testing truths of faith or explaining religion.

1. Reason justifies faith.

2. Reason "aids" faith.

3. Faith and Reason are fundamentally separate. (fideism)

Discussion Exercise

Thought experiment, "God at JFK"

Naturalistic Theories of Religion

Justin Barrett, and others, research the cognitive structures that support religious belief. He claims that his research does not address questions of the ultimate truth of religous belief, but does seek to explain how religion functions cognitively.

"By virtue of our biological endowment as human beings and our environmental endowment from living in this world, people all over the world have similar minds. ... Operating largely without our awareness, mental "tools" encourage us to think similarly about many banal features of the world around us. These mental tools also encourage people to think about and believe in gods, the Judeo-Christian God enjoying particularly favorable treatment, especially during child development. Once introduced into a population, belief in the existence of a supreme god with properties such as being superknowing, superpowerful, and immortal is highly contagious and a hard habit to break. The way our minds are structured and develop make these beliefs very attractive. "

Other recent researchers, such as Scot Atran (In Gods We Trust) and Pascal Boyer (Religion Explained), work in anthropology and cognitive anthropology to develop confirmable theories about the way religion functions in human society.

Begin Discussion of Proofs for the Existence of God

1. Arguments from experience

2. Cosmological Argument

3. Argument from Design

4. Ontological Argument

4/8

No class

4/13

Work on Proofs for the Existence of God

1. Argument from Experience

advantages of working from experience.

major problems: diversity of experiences, lack of experience, non-verifiability of experience, sensitivity of experience to upbringing

strong thesis vs. weaker thesis: Experience of God demonstrates. . . vs. Religious experience suggests. . .

notice in relation to epistemology, God and JFK.

2. Cosmological Argument

Basic Form:

P1: If there is no God, there is no world.

P2: There is a world.

C: There is a God.

principle of sufficient reason - for everything that exists there must be an explanation of why it exists.

major objection to framework of the argument: modern critique of use of principle of s.r., Russell/Copleston, p. 186 R1

but, grant that, then there might be 3 options for explanation of cosmos:

1. Cosmos always existed (maybe Bang/Crunch)

but there are no actual infinities, are there? example of person actually counting to or from infinity.

Is it explanatory?

2. Cosmos begins with Singularity (Big Bang)

Uncaused events. Example of the moment of loss of the neutron from a decaying uranium sample.

Why prefer God to a random event?

Oddness of saying that the entire universe is an uncaused event.

Contingent being / necessary being.

3. God explains Cosmos

only a necessary being can explain the existence of the universe in a non-random way.

God is that necessary being.

3. Design Arguments

Found object arguments. Paley's watch, memory chip. Counter arguments?

Can natural science explain the accumulation of design? metaphors of design in biology.

Mind first vs. Mind last

Consider diverse possibilities for explaining the apparent accumulation of order and design.

Traditional Creationism: Faith based arguments, arguments from ignorance, attacks on science.

Naturalistic Explanations (including Theory of Evolution): incomplete at this point on questions of origin of life.

Intelligent Design Creationism: having both explanations: Hoyle on probability. argument against this (193)

Ockham's Razor

4. Ontological Arguments

Basic Form:

P1: Either God exists or he doesn't.

P2: The claim that God does not exist is contradictory.

C: God exists.

Denial of God's existence entails a contradiction.

greatest possible .... plus existence? The greatest being you can think of must exist? Try to deny it and you wind up saying, "It is possible to think of something greater than the greatest being that one can think of"

Kant's argument against treating existence as a predicate (R1 p. 198). Not a property of a thing. example of "dream partner" 198.

Reflections on Proofs:

Are they proofs? Were they meant to be proofs or aids to reflection?

What do we mean by proof today in relation to knowledge of science? Mathematics again!

Importance of necessity in the proofs.

4/15

The Problem of Evil

Pattern Argument for the Logical Problem of Evil

Problem for faiths in which God is omnipotent and wholly good.

1. Every good being tries everything in its power to prevent innocent

beings from suffering unnecessary evil.

2. If God exists, and if God is all-good, omniscient, and omnipotent, then innocent beings should not suffer from unnecessary evils (like land mines, diseases, or starvation).

3. But they do suffer from these evils.

C: Either God does not exist or he is not a wholly good being.

-the free will argument in response.

Pattern Argument for the Evidentiary problem of Evil

1. (concession) God's existence is compatible with unnecessary suffering.

2. The existence, kinds, and amounts of suffering in the world make the existence of (or our idea of) God highly implausible.

C: Either God does not exist or hi is not a wholly good being.

Possible "adequate solutions" according to Mackie:

1. You can qualify God's omnipotence.

2. Evil is an illusion.

3. Disorder is harmony misunderstood.

But solutions that do not remove the contradiction or are pseudo-solutions for Mackie.

1. Evil is due to Human Free Will.

Can you coherently argue that it is better on the whole that humans should be free? Couldn't God have made it so that we freely choose the good? (If logically possible to freely choose the good in one case, why not every case?) Second, if men's will's are free, is God omnipotent? Maybe God refrains from controlling us even though he still could. But why?

Paradox of Omnipotence (Mackie, p. 456)

2. The Universe is Better with Some Evil in It

Two approaches: aesthetic analogy or progress dynamism. distinction between 1st and 2nd order goods. 1st order evil nec. for 2nd order good. pain for gain. sympathy (which opens us up to pain of others) for moral virtues like benevolence.

Mackie: But benevolence might be derivative good. We want it to help make us happy. Also, it follows from this approach that God isn't interested in minimizing 1st order evil. That might be disturbing. But the biggest problem is that we are left with no way to explain 2nd order evils like malevolence, cruelty, callousness, and cowardice.

3. Evil is necessary as a means to Good

Is God then subject to this necessity? If God can self-bind, then yes. But why would he?

4/20

No class due to conference travel.

4/22

Discussion of "Heretics" audio from This American Life

--revealed religions works through retrieval and fidelity to past. Yet, religious traditions are live interpretive communities which reinterpret aspects of their belief in relation to contemporary problems.

--Heresey poses the problem of the limits of reinterpretation of theology. One way we put this was, what did Carlton Pearson expect? But if this line of thinking makes sense, then it follows that there is a real limit to intellectual freedom in these kinds of religious traditions. It might still make sense to talk about inquiry within a religious tradition, but we don't mean the same by this as inquiry in general, which is opened and not tied to a particular revealed event.

--This topic should also help with your theories about the relationship between reason and faith.

4/27

Should religions operate within the constraints of a contemporary view of rights?

Types of controversies:

• UK Equality Law
• Discrimination against women in church leadership positions.
• Discrimination against church members based on race or sexual orientation.
• Revision of misogynistic attitudes from the culture of origin of the religion or its history.

But aren't religious organizations private associations protected by basic rights and liberties (freedom of religion, speech, association) from constraints?

• Exercise of rights must also respect others' rights.
• What do rights mean within "in groups" like family, tribe, congregation?

How Greek should Christians be?

The short audio segment from theologian Don Cuppitt raises interesting questions about the meaning of revelations. How is the revelation of Christianity related to the culture and philosophies of its origin? How Greek should Christians be?

• What hermeneutic do you use for your faith?
• When mainstream Christians say proudly that they are not literalists, what does this mean? How far can it be taken?