Matt’s pieces on biblical inerrancy, Inerrancy and Biblical Authority and Two Forms of Inerrancy, were featured in the Christian Carnival CCCXV at Ancient Hebrew Poetry. John FH gives Matt the following write up:

Matt writes exceptionally well. He makes one good point after another. Still, I think the two poles he posits, Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) and Didactic Plenary Inspiration (DPI), represent a false dichotomy. I hold to both: VPI “that each and every word used in the Bible is exactly the word that God wanted used,” and DPI “the question to be asked with respect to a Biblical text is “what was it intended to teach?”; “the particular message that God wants to convey gets across.” I also hold that God superintended the transmission (SPI) of the text such that it was, over time, faithfully edited and translated, and is, for all intensive purposes, just as inerrant in the Septuagint as it is in the MT; in the Textus Receptus as in Nestle-Aland; in the NIV as in the KJV. Finally, I hold that the correct conveyance of the message that God wants to gets across depends on the present work of the Holy Spirit (HSPI). Any other position, in my view, has too dim a view of God’s providence. Since Matt likes to refer to the “originals” which we do not have, and applies the language of inerrancy to them alone, I am left to assume, which is absurd, that he considers the NIV or KJV Bible (or whatever) read and preached on in church on a given Sunday to be an errant text. Matt: you have just been hazed by a biblical blogger. Please consider it a token of respect.

Feel free to discuss this comment here. As usual, the Christian Carnival features a wide range of pieces from all over the blogosphere so click through to Ancient Hebrew Poetry to have a browse.

My pieces on property rights jurisprudence, Property Rights: Blackstone, Locke and the Legislative Scheme Part I and Part II were featured in the Philosophers’ Carnival at In Living Color. This edition of the carnival is had an animal philosophy section so there are some really interesting pieces.

Matt picked up some work teaching philosophy, ethics and religious education to an Auckland High School this week, which may last anything from 2 weeks through the end of the term. He has to get his head around the readings and adjust to teaching 23 periods a week so researching and writing for the blog has to take a back seat. We were working on a joint project around the Medical Council’s guidelines that were the subject of an injunction last week – he taking the ethics, I tackling the rights and freedoms legal issues and jointly both of us putting together the jurisprudence but that is now on hold though I will keep doing my bit. Matt has also been writing a Sunday Study on the long ages in the Old Testament but that too has been delayed. So, having a peruse of these carnivals and the blogs on our blogroll might be a good idea for the next day or so…

Or you could read Garfield Herrington’s review of us/this blog over at Gotcha:

Epistemology
Glenn Peoples brings us Hume on Induction and Miracles: Having a Bob Each Way? posted at Say Hello to my Little Friend. Glenn draws attention to a conflict between Hume’s stance on induction on the one hand, and the kind of argument that he uses against miracles on the other.

History of Philosophy
Jim S. brings us Thus Spoke Cratylus posted at Agent Intellect.  Jim provides critical commentary on Nietzsche’s essay “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense.”

Logic and Language
Bryan brings us Where the Material Conditional gets its Truth Conditions posted at Soul Physics. Bryan discusses how to explain, in simple terms, the truth table for the material conditional, in particular, why conditionals with a false antecedant are true.

Mind
Gualtiero Piccinini brings us Two Kinds of Concept: Implicit and Explicit posted at Brains. Gualtiero links to a paper he has written explicating the distinction between implicit and explicit concepts.

Jonathan Phillips brings us  Could Paris Hilton Ever Be Happy? posted at Experimental Philosophy. Jonathan sets out the results of some research on attributions of evaluative and non-evaluative mental state concepts. The discussion already begun in the comments section is also worth reading.

Moral Philosophy
Richard Chappell brings us Analyzing Act, Rule, and Global Consequentialism posted at PEA Soup. As the title suggests, Richard discusses the difference between act, rule and global consequentialism and offers critical comments on all three.

Philosophy of Law
Madeleine Flannagan brings us Religious Restraint and Public Policy: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V & Part VI posted at MandM. Madeleine provides a long and comprehensive discussion of the doctrine of religious restraint, the claim that in public policy debate support for a given policy is morally unjustified unless one has secular reasons for that policy. She argues that the doctrine entails an arbitrary and unjustified asymmetrical treatment of religious and secular beliefs.

Philosophy of Religion
Dominic Bnonn Tennant brings us Determinism and the Authorship of Sin in Calvinism and Arminianism posted at Dominic Bnonn Tennant. Bnonn discusses issues around theological determinism and God’s culpability for sin.

Jeremy Pierce brings us Satisficing Without Supererogation posted at Parableman. Jeremy attempts to reconcile the claim that there is no best possible world with the view that there is no supererogation. He argues that for a perfect being there is no supererogation and also that a perfect being is not required to create the best possible world as no best possible world exists.

Matthew Flannagan brings us Tooley, The Euthyphro Objection and Divine Commands: Part I and Part II posted at MandM. Matt gives a critical discussion of Michael Tooley’s version of the Euthyphro dilemma and some attempts to defend it.

Political Philosophy
Aaron Powell brings us A Marble Temple Shining on a Hill: Reality and Michael Walzer posted at Aaron Ross Powell. This is a criticism of Michael Walzer’s defence of communitarianism.

That concludes Philosophers’ Carnival XCXI. You can submit your blog article to the next edition using the Philosophers’ Carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on the blog carnival index page.

So… you’ve got a couple of weeks to submit an entry.

The lowdown on the carnival and the criteria for submissions is explained in full here. The short version is that you should  use the BlogCarnival submissions form to submit your link to the blog post you’d like to have featured.  It doesn’t have to be something new, feel free to use something you might have written a while back but that perhaps deserves more exposure. Also keep in mind that Philosophers’ Carnival founder Richard Chappell points out that “your post doesn’t need to be anything earth-shattering – it just needs to be something that other philosophically-minded people might enjoy reading.”

It would be great to see some more kiwi contributions amongst the international ones especially now that Richard is an honorary yank – I’m not sure we can claim him anymore

Matt’s and my post Audi and the Infallibility of Religious Reasons is featured.

There are a number of other interesting reads also linked to so head on over and check them out.

Matt’s posts: Tooley, Plantinga and the Deontological Argument from Evil Part I and Tooley, Plantinga and the Deontological Argument from Evil Part II are featured.

There are a number of other interesting reads also linked to so head on over and check them out.

Matt’s post on Walter Sinnott-Armstrong on God, Morality and Arbitrariness was featured, albeit with a rather questionable introductory write-up; keep an eye on the comments at both links for some interesting debate. ]]> http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/08/philosophy-carnival-xcv.html/feed 1