Conference Papers

Nathan Jacobs

Home

Curriculum Vitae

Publications

Conference Papers

Artwork

Assistant Professor of Theology | Trinity College | TIU

Conference Papers

“What Hath Königsberg to Do with Byzantium? An Eastern Reply to the Problem of Post-Kantian Theology”

International Congress of Medieval Studies, “Mystical Bridges to Postmodernity: Toward a Critical Theology?” (May, 2010)

In Nicholas Wolterstorff’s well-known essay, “Is It Possible and Desirable for Theologians to Recover from Kant?,” Wolterstorff examines the predicament contemporary theology faces, given its post-Kantian context. He avers the primary difficulty facing theology is one of anxiety: How can we speak (or even think) of God in a way that actually refers to God? According to Wolterstorff, the strictures on human knowledge and experience set forth in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason appear to make theological discourse that is actually about God impossible. As Wolterstorff explains, the Kantian strictures on knowledge limit knowledge to what we can (in principle) experience, and that which transcends experience cannot be known in any meaningful sense. This sets up a bifurcated worldview made of things-as-they-appear (phenomena) and things-as-they-are-in-themselves (noumena). Kant is clear: the a priori definition of God is such that no possible intuition is adequate to the concept; hence, God stands on the wrong side of the noumena-phenomena divide, as wholly unknowable. Wolterstorff’s reply to his own question is simply No.

In this paper, I take up Wolterstorff’s question afresh, in an effort to lay the groundwork for a critical philosophy that takes the Kantian limits on natural human knowledge of God quite seriously. Yet, rather than limiting my resources to Kant himself, I will draw on the theology of the Eastern fathers—in particular, the Cappadocians—and their reception in Hesychasts, such as Gregory Palamas. I will argue that a careful examination of the Cappadocian fathers reveals that they would readily affirm the Kantian limits on knowledge as both true and theologically significant. But this raises the question: How do they overcome such limits? Drawing on Gregory Palamas, et al., I will argue that the mystical transfiguration of the faculties via theosis is key to Eastern epistemology, and offers a way of affirming the “critical” limits on reason forwarded by Kant, without restricting theological insight to the solutions offered by Kant. I will argue that Kant’s entire project hangs on the assumption that the limits of reason are fixed and the structures of our faculties are stable; and in light of this assumption, sets up the problem of theology. Though Kant gives ample consideration to whether God can condescend to our faculties (and rejects our ability to know if this were to occur), what Kant does not consider is whether God may transfigure the faculties, raising them up to what is naturally above them. But this claim is the heart of Eastern epistemology.

Find conference details here.

“Summary of In Defense of Kant’s Religion”

American Academy of Religion: Annual Meeting, Society of Christian Philosophers: Symposium on In Defense of Kant’s Religion (Nov, 2009)

In November, 2009, the Society of Christian Philosophers hosted a symposium on In Defense of Kant's Religion (IDKR), by Chris L. Firestone and Nathan Jacobs (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2008), at the American Academy of Religion's annual meeting. The symposium (Authors Meet Critics) consisted of an opening summary of IDKR (Jacobs) -- posted above -- followed by three papers from critics of IDKR: George de Giovanni, Pamela Sue Anderson, and Stephen Palmquist. These papers were followed by replies from the authors -- Firestone and Jacobs, respectively. Chris L. Firestone's reply can be found here.

Attendees were provided a handout that includes the table of contents for IDKR, as well as a synopsis of some of the major conundrums facing Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, and a point-by-point summary of the major movements of the arguments in IDKR. The handout can be found here.

READ “Summary of In Defense of Kant’s Religion” here.

“Reply to Critics of In Defense of Kant’s Religion”

American Academy of Religion: Annual Meeting, Society of Christian Philosophers: Symposium on In Defense of Kant’s Religion (Nov, 2009)

READ “Reply to Critics of In Defense of Kant’s Religion” here.

“Leibniz and the Reformed Scholastics”

International Symposium, “Reformierte Philosophie in der Frühen Neuzeit” (Bretten/Germany), Europäische Melanchthon-Akademie Bretten (May, 2009)

Dominant among English-speaking Leibniz scholars is the opinion that Leibniz’s view of the relationship between will and intellect forces him toward determinism. In this paper, I argue that the deterministic reading of Leibniz is misdirected. In keeping with Leroy E. Loemker, I suggest that Leibniz is heavily influenced by the Reformed scholastics at Herborn, and this influence is evident in his understanding of free choice and providence. Building on the work Antonie Vos, W.J. van Asselt, Eef Dekker, et al., I submit that the view of free choice espoused by the Herborn encyclopedists comes largely out of the work of John Duns Scotus. This view, now known as “synchronic contingency,” represents a robust form of libertarian voluntarism. But if misread, it can be easily mistaken to yield determinism, which, I believe, is precisely what has happened in Leibniz-studies

PREVIEW the published version of “Leibniz and the Reformed Scholastics” here.

“A Response to Terry Muck”

Trinity Consultation on Post-Christendom Spiritualities (Oct, 2008)

In October, 2008, I served as respondent to a presentation by Terry Muck at the Trinity Consultation on Post-Christendom Spiritualities. Professor Muck’s paper was on the notion of “liquid identity” and how such a view of identity may be usefully employed in Christian missions. My response calls into question whether such a view of identity is compatible with Christian theology.

READ “A Response to Terry Muck” here.

“Teaching Philosophy by Making One’s Classroom a Shared-Life Experience: An Interview with Nathan Jacobs” (co-presenter: Chris L. Firestone)

Scholarship of Pedagogy Symposium, Associated Colleges of the Chicago Area (Oct, 2007)

Presented as an informal conversation, this paper/presentation recounted the history of how Firestone and Jacobs moved from mentor-protégé to colleagues and co-authors. The presentation took a number of principles from this story on how teachers may cultivate extraordinary mentor-protégé relationships.

“Contesting Clayton: A Critique of Philip Clayton’s Emergent Panentheism”

Dominican University, American Academy of Religion: Midwest Regional Meeting (April, 2007)

In “Panentheism in Metaphysical and Scientific Perspective,” Philip Clayton contends that the best argument for panentheism is a “cumulative case.” Clayton’s sizeable and largely uncontested corpus embodies this cumulative approach by defending panentheism from a variety of angles, ranging from the history of Modern thought from René Descartes through F.W.J. Schelling to matters of biological evolution and the emergence of mind. The aspect of Clayton’s case for panentheism I consider in this paper is Clayton’s strategy to construct a philosophical theology that fits comfortably with the current scientific understanding of organism. I will argue, contrary to Clayton’s claim, that panentheism does not naturally accommodate current understandings of organism.

PREVIEW the published version of “Contesting Clayton” here.

“Contra Clayton: Toward an Augustinian Philosophy of Organism”

Dominican University, American Academy of Religion: Midwest Regional Meeting (April, 2007)

In this following up to “Contesting Clayton,” I suggest, as an alternative to Clayton’s panentheistic approach, that a classical Augustinian metaphysic is the most conceptually apt paradigm for appropriating and understanding the philosophy of organism. Though Clayton thinks classical theism is simply inadequate to deal with the current science of organism, I argue that Augustine’s early modifications to NeoPlatonism, which build on a concern for sustaining a Creator-creature gap, yield a conceptual framework consonant with the down-up emergence of organism. Augustine, in seeking to retain a Creator-creature distinction, conceives of creation, not as pouring forth directly from God’s own Being, but as consisting of two stages. First, God creates formless matter—in the Platonic sense. God then, in the second stage of creation, draws matter toward himself (in an ontic sense), which causes matter to taking on the properties of being: measure, form, and order (modus, species, ordo). In this conceptual framework, matter moves up the Great Chain of Being in the process of creation, progressing from a state of utter non-being toward God, who is the very source of Being. This down-up emergence, I argue, captures what is most fundamental to the philosophy of organism in general and what is conceptually essential to biological evolution in particular. Yet, unlike the purely materialistic conceptions of organic evolution that make the development of organism a blind process or the mere outworking of the divine watchmaker’s wisdom, Augustine’s metaphysic provides a way of looking at the process of organism through a refined metaphysical lens, which brings into sharp relief its thoroughly teleological character. Therefore, I conclude that classical Augustinian theism is well-equipped to develop a strong connection between theology and the contemporary scientific understanding of organism.

PREVIEW the published version of “Contra Clayton” here.

“On the Only Possible Reading of Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: Books One and Two”

Houghton College, Society of Christian Philosophers: “The Enlightenment Project Revisited” (May, 2006)

This paper was presented as a follow up to Chris L. Firestone’s paper “On the Only Possible Reading of Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: A Prolegomena.” The prolegomena, along with this and the following paper on book three of Religion, offered a concise presentation of the reading now published in Firestone / Jacobs, In Defense of Kant’s Religion (Indiana University Press, 2008).

Find conference details here.

The content of “On the Only Possible Reading of Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: Books One and Two” was grafted into In Defense of Kant’s Religion.

PREVIEW In Defense of Kant’s Religion here.

Find In Defense of Kant’s Religion on the Indiana University Press website.

“On the Only Possible Reading of Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: Book Three” (co-presenter: Chris L. Firestone)

Houghton College, Society of Christian Philosophers: “The Enlightenment Project Revisited” (May, 2006)

See the above paper description of “On the Only Possible Reading of Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: Books One and Two.”

Find conference details here.

The content of “On the Only Possible Reading of Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: Book Three” was grafted into In Defense of Kant’s Religion.

PREVIEW In Defense of Kant’s Religion here.

Find In Defense of Kant’s Religion on the Indiana University Press website.

“Kant’s Apologia”

American Academy of Religion, Annual Meeting: “Symposium on Kant and the New Philosophy of Religion” (Nov, 2005)

This paper was part of a panel session devoted to Kant and the New Philosophy of Religion, eds. Chris L. Firestone / Stephen Palmquist (Indiana University Press, 2006). Panelists included John Hare, Chris Firestone, Stephen Palmquist, Christopher McCammon, and myself, along with respondent Christophe Chalamet. The group of papers (with the exception of McCammon’s) was later published in Philosophia Christi 9:1 (2007).

Find conference details here.

READ the published version of “Kant’s Apologia” here.

“A Genealogy of Aesthetics: Part I” / “A Genealogy of Aesthetics: Part II”

Hope Presbyterian Church (Jan, 2005)

These talks were part of a two-part presentation on the history of aesthetics, with emphasis on the gradual deconstruction of objective aesthetics. In this two-part lecture, I argue in favor of a Christian return to and defense of objective aesthetics. For more on my philosophy of art, see my contributions to the Journal of Markets and Morality under published essays.

“Augustine and Augustinianism”

Evangelical Philosophical Society, Annual Meeting (Nov, 2001)

This paper traces the history of Augustine’s intellectual development as it relates specifically to the problem of evil (formulated relative to Manicheism) and Augustine’s subsequent turn to NeoPlatonism.

“Meet Chauncey Gardner”

American Academy of Religion: Midwest Regional Meeting (April, 2001)

Presented at the AAR’s Midwest Regional Meeting on Religion and Humor, this paper uses Peter Seller’s movie Being There as a springboard for discussing matters of theological anthropology and identity.

“A Theodicy”

American Academy of Religion: Evangelical Theology Group (Nov, 2000)

“A Theodicy” was my first conference paper. I presented as an undergraduate as part of a three-person panel, with response from John Stackhouse. I engaged the respective views of John Hick, St. Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas, arguing for a modified Augustinianism. My views have since changed considerably.