phil 339 (x50) - St. Joseph's College - University of Alberta

THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA
ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE
Joseph A. Buijs
St. Joseph's College
Email: jbuijs@ualberta.ca Phone: 780-492-7681
For detailed information see: http://www.ualberta.ca/~jbuijs/phil339.htm
PHIL 339 (X50)
CONTEMPORARY WORLD VIEWS
AND CHRISTIANITY
WINTER TERM (II) 2013 Course Reg # 72264
W: 18:00 - 21:00 Classroom: SJ 102
DESCRIPTION
Critical study of Christianity in dialogue with such worldviews as atheism,
agnosticism, naturalism, materialism, existentialism, feminism, liberalism, and
postmodernism.
OBJECTIVES
The overall objectives of this course are:
# To explore diverse and contemporary worldviews in
relation to the worldview of (christian) theism.
# To assess the compatibility, or conflict, among underlying
assumptions of selected worldviews.
# To gain an understanding of the philosophical issue of
faith vs reason in a contemporary context.
“Policy about course outlines can be found in Section 23.4(2) of the University Calendar.”
(University Calendar, Addendum Page, June 13, 2012: 23.4 (2)(a)(xi))

JA Buijs Phil 339, 2013 – 2
RESOURCES
Joseph A. Buijs. Worldviews in Conflict and Dialogue. Published for Student Use.
University of Alberta, 2013.
Selected Readings and Resources for Phil 339. Compiled by Joseph A. Buijs. University
of Alberta Custom Courseware, 2013.
Joseph A. Buijs, What is Philosophy? A Guide for the Beginning Student. Published for
Student Use. University of Alberta, 2003.
Students will have access to an eClass site with detailed information on topics,
assignments, marking, additional resources, office hours, and the like.
EXPECTATIONS (Workload)
In addition to a reflective and critical study of required reading material, students will be
expected to complete the following written work:
# Two take-home tests, answering a pre-assigned question
maximum three typed pages; 15% each.
# A critical discussion of any selected conceptual framework (religion, ideology,
philosophy, worldview) other than any of the six explored in the course
outline: 5%
maximum eight typed pages; 25%
# A final, take-home exam: 40%
Written work is expected to be the student’s own and specifically produced for this course. Any
use of resources, whether merely drawing from the views and arguments of others or quoting
verbatim, must be properly documented.
“The University of Alberta is committed to the highest standards of academic integrity and
honesty. Students are expected to be familiar with these standards regarding academic honesty
and to uphold the policies of the University in this respect. Students are particularly urged to
familiarize themselves with the provision of the Code of Student Behaviour (online at
www.ualberta.ca/secretariat/appeals.htm) and avoid any behaviour which could potentially result
in suspicions of cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation of facts and/or participation in an
offence. Academic dishonesty is a serious offence and can result in suspension or expulsion from
the University.” (University Calendar, Addendum Page, June 13, 2012: 23.4 (2)(a)(xii))
“Whether we know it or not--whether we like it or not – each of us has a worldview.
These worldviews function as interpretive conceptual schemes to explain why we "see"
the world as we do, why we often think and act as we do. Competing worldviews often
come into conflict.”
Ronald H. Nash, Faith and Reason (1988): 33-34

JA Buijs Phil 339, 2013 – 3
PROGRAMME OF STUDY
The course will lead students through a critical discussion of the following themes. Worldviews
in Conflict And Dialogue and additional resources discuss each of these themes and worldviews.
Worldview: the concept, structure and significance
What is a worldview? How is it different from ideologies? What is the structure and significance of a
worldview among our belief-systems? What are some examples of conflicting worldviews? How do we assess
worldviews? How can we address conflicting worldviews? What is my worldview?
Religious worldviews: Christian Theism
What is fundamental to a Christian worldview?
How does Christianity view the world, the nature of human
beings, the meaning and purpose of human life? How does
Christianity view the limits or extent of human knowledge?
What is the basis, or justification, for these views? What is
philosophically plausible about Christian theism? What, if
antyhing, is philosophically problematic?
“Perhaps there are four billion worldviews, since
every person has her or his set of values and
perspective on life. But there are also major
patterns and systems which shape and are shaped
by societies, and we give to these such labels as
‘Christianity’ and ‘Buddhism’.”
Ninian Smart, Buddhism and
Christianity: Rivals and Allies (1993): 1
Religious worldviews: Buddhism
What is fundamental to a Buddhist worldview? How does Buddhism view the world and human life within
it? What is the basis, or justification, for these Buddhist views? What is philosophically plausible, or problematic,
about Buddhism? How does a Buddhist view compare, or contrast, with a Christian view of reality, human nature,
knowledge?
“. . . at least among Western-influenced peoples,
Christian theism and naturalistic or secular
humanism are the primary options of the day.”
Arthur F. Holmes,
Contours of a World View (1983): 15
Humanism: values and purpose
What is the fundamental focus of humanism?
What is the basis of value and meaning in human life?
Is “man the measure of all things”? What is
philosophically plausible in humanism? What, if
anything, is problematic? Are humanism and its
varieties compatible with Buddhism? Is a christian
humanism possible? In what sense or to what extent?

JA Buijs Phil 339, 2013 – 4
Naturalism: science and the world
What is fundamental to a naturalistic worldview?
What are its ontological, epistemological, and ethical
views? How can we adequately explain the moral
dimension of human beings? Their mental capacities and
experience of consciousness? What are the legitimate
scope and limits of science? Must naturalism be
necessarily materialistic? Must naturalism be non-theistic?
What is philosophically plausible in naturalism? What, if
anything, is problematic?
“. . . one theme that underlies nearly all
philosophical discussion is the perpetual conflict
between naturalistic and nonnaturalistic world
views.”
William H. Halverson, A Concise
th
Introduction to Philosophy (4 ed.,
1981:): 9
Postmodernism: meaning and interpretation
“Postmodernism swims, even wallows,
in the fragmentary and the chaotic
currents of change as if that is all there
is.”
David Harvey, The Condition
of Postmodernity (1989): 44
What are the origins of postmodernism? What are the
fundamental contentions of postmodernism? How does
postmodernism understand meaning, truth, reality? Is reality
merely a human construct? Is truth made rather than discovered? Is
morality conventional rather than universal? What is
philosophically plausible in postmodernism? What, if anything, is
problematic? Is a christian postmodernism or a buddhist
postmodernism possible?
Atheism (agnosticism)
On what basis is atheism or non-theism
opposed to theism? Are there significant varieties of
non-theism or atheism? What justification can be
given for a non-theistic worldview? How does this
worldview address the issue of meaning or purpose in
life? What is philosophically plausible in atheism or
non-theism? What, if anything, is problematic? Is any
fruitful dialogue possible between theists and nontheists?
“. . . for somebody living in the twentieth century
with a good philosophical and a good scientific
education, who thinks carefully about the matter,
for such a person it is irrational to believe in God.”
Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist, The Great
Debate (1990): 48
“People who share one of these [four
distinguishable worldviews of Western societies]
communicate fairly well with one another, not so
well with people of a different worldview.”
Walter T. Anderson, “Four Ways to be
Absolutely Right,” The Truth about the
Truth (1995): 110
Competing worldviews: conflict or
convergence?
How can we address the issue of pluralism
among worldviews? Is conflict inevitable? Is
convergence possible? What are some of the parameters
for constructive dialogue among conflicting worldviews?
Can faith commitments be integrated into intellectual
pursuits?

JA Buijs Phil 339, 2013 – 5
CONTACTING THE INSTRUCTOR
The easiest way to contact me with course concerns is by email (place Phil 339 in the
subject heading). However, arrangements can be made to meet at any other convenient time as
needed. Usually, I can also stop to address concerns or questions immediately after class.
USE OF COURSE CONTENT
Printed course material and additional on-line resources are under copyright protection.
They are made available for personal use only.
“Audio or video recording of lectures, labs, seminars or any other teaching environment by
students is allowed only with the prior written consent of the instructor or as a part of an
approved accommodation plan. Recorded material is to be used solely for personal study, and is
not to be used or distributed for any other purpose without prior written consent from the
instructor.” (University Calendar, Addendum Page, June 13, 2012: 23.4 (2)(e))
TAKE-HOME TESTS
DUE January 23, 2013
March 6, 2013
March 20, 2013 (optional)
VALUE
OBJECTIVE
LENGTH
CONTENT
APPROACH
30% of the term mark (15% each)
To show a critical understanding of a worldview and
implied philosophical issues.
No more than 3 pages (computer print-out, double-spaced,
12-point font).
Each test will consist of answering an assigned question in
relation to issues and worldviews discussed up to that point.
No further research or reading should be required, other
than the resources of the course, i.e., class discussion, notes,
and assigned selections from the Coursepack.

JA Buijs Phil 339, 2013 – 6
PHILOSOPHICAL (RESEARCH) PROJECT
DUE Outline: February 13, 2013. Project: March 27, 2013
VALUE
OBJECTIVE
LENGTH
SCOPE
30% of the term mark (5% for the outline; 25% for the essay)
To develop critical philosophical thinking dealing with a conceptual
framework or worldview
No more than 8 pages (computer print-out, double-spaced, 12-point
font)
Select any conceptual framework: religion, ideology, philosophy, or
worldview, other than the six already contained in the Coursepack.
Include the following components:
! Introduction: some background, historical context, influences,
personages (as applicable)
! Fundamental claims: touchstone belief and/or view of reality,
truth, knowledge, human nature, and the like
! Comparison and contrast: relation of chosen conceptual
framework to one of the Coursepack worldviews; in what ways it is
similar or different, whether it is a modification, an extension, or a
reaction
! Critical assessment: what is plausible, what remains problematic
! Resources: at least one reference to a Coursepack selection and one
reference to some other resource.
ASSESSMENT
FURTHER
HELP
The Research Project will be assessed using the following criteria:
! Elements of style that include spelling, diction, grammar,
documentation
! Clarity in presenting concepts, claims, views
! Cogency in presenting argumentation or justifications
! Critical response that shows your stand towards the conceptual
framework – whether definite or qualified – and that defends it as
best you can.
In choosing a conceptual framework, select one with which you are
already somewhat familiar or one that you would like to pursue further.
Suggested resources are under ASSIGNMENT on WebCT. Sample
references and suggestions on developing a critical, philosophical
approach are also available on WebCT under RESOURCES and in
What is Philosophy?

JA Buijs Phil 339, 2013 – 7
FINAL EXAM
General Information
The Final Exam in this course will be a take-home exam. It will be distributed in class on
April 3 and will be due April 10 prior to 7:00 pm. The content of the exam will be chosen from a
list of questions made available on-line, excluding those that were assigned for the earlier takehome
tests.
If for any reason, medical or otherwise, a student is unable to hand in the final exam by
the scheduled time, notify your instructor as soon as possible.
Requests for deferrals and re-examinations follow the policy as set by the Faculty of Arts;
see sections 23.5.5 of the University of Alberta Calendar.
Format
Since the exam is for a course in philosophy, it will test for philosophical understanding and
philosophical thinking, more than for memorized information. The exam will consist of several
sections with a choice within each section. The types of questions vary from a critical discussion
of a broad theme covered in the course, to more specific issues from within a single unit, to a
clarification of concepts together with their philosophical significance.
MARKING AND GRADING
Philosophical writing strives for clarity, conciseness, coherence, critical insight, and
cogency. Thus written assignments will be evaluated using those criteria, modified somewhat to
suit the scope of specific assignments.
The marks for individual components of the course are weighted according to the
percentage assigned to them for the course, giving a total raw score based on 100%, and then
converted into a grade for the course according to a conversion scale..
However, the conversion scale is only “a rough mathematical guideline”. The assignment
of a course grades may include, in addition to raw scores for written assignments and the final
exam, such other qualitative considerations as overall class performance, individual improvement
and class participation. Although individual grades will not be determined on the basis of a
preassigned distribution, historical Grade Point Averages for courses in the Faculty of Arts may
be used to adjust the conversion scale with the effect of raising, rather than lowering, individual
grades.
For more detailed information on evaluation criteria for written work, raw marks, and
conversion scale from percent to a grade for the course see the document “Marking” on eClass
under General Information or under Assignments.