God/Mod.Wrld:The Pantheism Controv.

Each student will prepare 4 papers of 3 pages each.  You will choose which three readings you will write about in the Paper Sign up assignment.  Papers will be posted by Monday at midnight.  All students will post a one-paragraph response to the paper and/or reading by Wednesday at midnight.  All students will read all postings and post an additional one paragraph reflection or comment by Friday at midnight.  Each paper is worth 20% of your grade, and the quality of your postings over the quarter is worth 20% of your grade. Late postings will not be accepted.  

Papers will be graded according to the following 4 criteria:

1. A clearly stated claim;
2. Textual evidence to support the claim;
3. Quality of writing (organization, proper use of sentences and paragraphs, grammar, spelling, and all other mechanics);
4. Depth and seriousness of analysis. 

In a short paper the claim typically appears as the last sentence of the introductory paragraph (if it is not there the writer needs clearly to mark where it is, since otherwise readers will assume that sentence is the claim).  A claim states the conclusion of the argument put forward in the paper.  You have a great deal of freedom here.  A claim might state what is the most important idea in the reading, or what the author must assume to make his or her argument, or what the logical extension of that argument might be, or how that argument relates to other readings on our syllabus, or what the author gets right or wrong, etc.   In a short paper you will likely not be able to summarize the all the points the author makes, nor should you try.  Part of your task of analysis is to prioritize what is most important to lift up for discussion for our class.  Your paper will likely not follow the same organization as the reading under analysis, since the logic of your argument will not be the same as the logic of the argument of the reading.  If your paragraphs tend to begin “And then . . .;  Next . . .” then it is probably time to go back and do at least one more draft and re-think what you are presenting and how.  Papers for this class are a little closer to the summary end of the spectrum than a term paper might be, since they are the basis for our discussion.  But they are still papers that make engage the text by making a point about the text.  At the end, some questions for discussion should be proposed.

The purpose of the papers is three-fold: the first is to encourage deep engagement with the texts; the second is to encourage a habit of discussion that is open, respectful, and rigorous.  This is best accomplished when the analytical essays take a charitable stance towards the readings.  Some of them will seem old-fashioned, and the writers may have different concerns than do we.  As in any good conversation, it is important first to try to see where the writer is coming from, rather than to be dismissive of his or her ideas.  There will be plenty of time later to decide what is useful to you and what is not.   We must begin with an accurate understanding of what is actually going on in the essay.  Third, these section papers will help develop your skills as readers and writers.  A great number of studies show that “peer-review” is a very effective way to teach writing.  The feedback you get on these papers during discussion will be quite valuable.

Papers will be graded on the following scale:

4 = A
3 = B
2 = C
1 = D
0 = F

A book “forged in hell by the apostate Jew working together with the devil.”

--Anonymous, on Spinoza’s Tractatus

“Respectfully offer up with me a lock of hair to the manes of the holy rejected Spinoza!”

--Schleiermacher, 1799

Course Description

What is the most fruitful model for thinking about God? There are a few perennial options, each of which have social, political, and ethical implications in addition to metaphysical ones. In the post-Enlightenment world a version of the pantheism model swept through philosophers and theologians, Jews and Christians, raising issues which, if possible, are even more pressing in our post-Christian context. The so-called Pantheism Controversy has the advantage of not only unpacking all the issues involved in the various models of God, but of also being a good story of the personal lives and relationships of a fascinating group of people. This course introduces students to the most pertinent writings from this controversy and engages theological and philosophical work, influenced by the controversy, from our own contexts.

Course Goals

1. to become familiar with the major figures of the Pantheism Controversy;
2. to engage the central readings from the Pantheism Controversy;
3. to think deeply about the issues raised in this controversy;
4. and to weigh the merits of various models of anthropology and the doctrine of God that may be important in the contemporary theological scene but that are too infrequently part of the contemporary conversation.

Required Books

Students should obtain the following required readings for this course:

• Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Nathan the Wise .
• Benedict de Spinoza, Ethics.

• Howard Thurman, Jesus and the Disinherited

• Gérard Vallée, The Spinoza Conversations between Lessing & Jacobi (Lanham: University Press of America, 1988).

There are also required and recommended readings available in Canvas as PDFs or links, including:

• Herder, God:  Some Conversations .
• Immanuel Kant, “What Is Orientation in Thinking?”
• Moses Mendelssohn, Morning Hours .

Each student will prepare 4 papers of 3 pages each.  You will choose which three readings you will write about in the Paper Sign up assignment.  Papers will be posted by Monday at midnight.  All students will post a one-paragraph response to the paper and/or reading by Wednesday at midnight.  All students will read all postings and post an additional one paragraph reflection or comment by Friday at midnight.  Each paper is worth 20% of your grade, and the quality of your postings over the quarter is worth 20% of your grade. Late postings will not be accepted.  

Papers will be graded according to the following 4 criteria:

1. A clearly stated claim;
2. Textual evidence to support the claim;
3. Quality of writing (organization, proper use of sentences and paragraphs, grammar, spelling, and all other mechanics);
4. Depth and seriousness of analysis. 

In a short paper the claim typically appears as the last sentence of the introductory paragraph (if it is not there the writer needs clearly to mark where it is, since otherwise readers will assume that sentence is the claim).  A claim states the conclusion of the argument put forward in the paper.  You have a great deal of freedom here.  A claim might state what is the most important idea in the reading, or what the author must assume to make his or her argument, or what the logical extension of that argument might be, or how that argument relates to other readings on our syllabus, or what the author gets right or wrong, etc.   In a short paper you will likely not be able to summarize the all the points the author makes, nor should you try.  Part of your task of analysis is to prioritize what is most important to lift up for discussion for our class.  Your paper will likely not follow the same organization as the reading under analysis, since the logic of your argument will not be the same as the logic of the argument of the reading.  If your paragraphs tend to begin “And then . . .;  Next . . .” then it is probably time to go back and do at least one more draft and re-think what you are presenting and how.  Papers for this class are a little closer to the summary end of the spectrum than a term paper might be, since they are the basis for our discussion.  But they are still papers that make engage the text by making a point about the text.  At the end, some questions for discussion should be proposed.

The purpose of the papers is three-fold: the first is to encourage deep engagement with the texts; the second is to encourage a habit of discussion that is open, respectful, and rigorous.  This is best accomplished when the analytical essays take a charitable stance towards the readings.  Some of them will seem old-fashioned, and the writers may have different concerns than do we.  As in any good conversation, it is important first to try to see where the writer is coming from, rather than to be dismissive of his or her ideas.  There will be plenty of time later to decide what is useful to you and what is not.   We must begin with an accurate understanding of what is actually going on in the essay.  Third, these section papers will help develop your skills as readers and writers.  A great number of studies show that “peer-review” is a very effective way to teach writing.  The feedback you get on these papers during discussion will be quite valuable.

Papers will be graded on the following scale:

4 = A
3 = B
2 = C
1 = D
0 = F

Throughout the quarter, we will have several discussions which will compose a large part of our engagement with each other in this online learning space. For these discussions to be meaningful conversation spaces, we all need to take responsibility for consistent and substantial participation. Over the course of a conversation, substantial engagement means:

1. Extend the conversation - creatively and critically push the conversation forward, do not just regurgitate what has already been said. If 1 or 2 other students have already responded directly to a point raised in a student paper, do not simply write another response to that point unless it adds something new to the conversation. You need to extend the conversation by adding an additional or different insight from the course materials, by asking a new question that stems from one of the posts already offered, by offering a related and contextualized example of the issue being discussed from your own experience, or by creatively integrating your own perspective with what has already been posted. 
2. Ask contextualized questions - situate your questions within the discussion by referencing the course materials and other parts of the conversation thread that inform your inquiry. Give us a little background as to why this question matters to you and how it relates to the course.
3. Engage others in the course - thoughtful engagement with other students in the course and with the instructional team. 
4. Engage the course materials - thoughtful engagement with readings, lectures, student presentations, and any other materials related to the course. Referencing and citing course materials in your posts where appropriate is encouraged. 
5. Participate Respectfully - discussions in this course are likely to raise sensitive topics. Please strive for respect in all your comments, and charity in reading the comments of others.

Each post need not do all of these things, but your overall participation in each conversation should demonstrate all of these components. You might have several short posts and a handful of longer posts in a week or you might have only a few strategic substantial posts (minimum of 2 posts per discussion). Either way, your overall participation in each conversation will be evaluated for substantial engagement. The goal of this discussion design is to encourage and reward interchange, so post often and engage each other with meaningful questions that open to other questions.

Each student will prepare some background information on one person we are either reading or reading about. These should be posted by Sunday night at midnight on the week you signed up for in the discussion for that topic. They are intended as orientation to help understand the readings--"I've never heard of this person; what do I need to know"? They should be short, accessible, and fun if possible! You may write a paragraph (250 words-ish), post short videos of you talking, or link to clips. Please do not simply link to a webpage that gives background--that is your job! Please keep it to something your classmates can read/watch in 2 or 3 minutes.