Gottfried Leibniz coined the term 'theodicy' in an attempt to justify God's existence in light of the apparent imperfections of the world.

The term theodicy ( /θiːˈɒdɪsi/ from Greek theos - "god" + dike - "justice") has no universally agreed upon definition, but usually refers to an attempt to resolve the evidential problem of evil by reconciling God's traditional characteristics of omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience (all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing, respectively) with the occurrence of evil in the world. Although some arguments existed previously, the term 'theodicy' was coined in 1710 by German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz in his work, Théodicée.

A variety of theodicies exist. The Augustinian theodicy suggests that evil does not exist, except as a corruption of good, and occurs because of the free will of humans and angels. According to this tradition, evil occurs as a punishment for human sin. The Irenaean theodicy proposes that human suffering exists for human development. The theory proposes that humans are created imperfect, and that moral perfection is only attainable through the experience of suffering. The Holocaust has prompted reconsiderations of theodicy in Jewish philosophy; some philosophers have proposed alternative responses to evil. Similar to a theodicy, a cosmodicy is an attempt to justify the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil and suffering.

Definition[link]

A theodicy is a response to the evidential problem of evil and attempts to justify the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God in light of the occurrence of evil in the world.^[1] The evidential problem of evil argues that evil constitutes evidence against the existence of God and that, considering the occurrence of evil in the world, God's existence becomes unlikely.^[2]

There is a distinction between a theodicy and a defence. A defence is presented merely to indicate the logical possibility of the coexistence of God and evil, whereas a theodicy attempts to justify God's allowance of evil. Defences, therefore, propose solutions to the logical problem of evil, while theodicies attempt to answer the evidential problem.^[1] In the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nick Trakakis proposed an additional three requirements which must be contained within a theodicy:

• Common sense views of the world
• Widely held historical and scientific opinion
• Plausible moral principles^[1]

History[link]

The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz coined the term theodicy (as French: théodicée) in 1710 in his French work, Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal (Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil).^[3] Leibniz's Théodicée was a response to Dictionnaire Historique et Critique (1697/1702), written by the skeptical Protestant philosopher Pierre Bayle. Bayle saw no rational solution to the problem of evil, arguing against three attempts to solve it, and believed that since the Bible asserts the coexistence of evil and of God, that state of affairs must simply be accepted.^[4]

Voltaire critiqued Leibniz's concept of theodicy, suggesting that the massive destruction of innocent lives caused by the Lisbon earthquake demonstrated that God was not providing the "best of all possible worlds",^[5] a critique echoed by more recent philosophers in response to the multiple holocausts of the twentieth century.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1914), in an article by Constantine Kempf, gives a different definition of theodicy:

Imitating the example of Leibniz other philosophers now called their treatises on the problem of evil "theodicies". As in a thorough treatment of the question the proofs both of the existence and of the attributes of God cannot be disregarded, our entire knowledge of God was gradually brought within the domain of theodicy. Thus theodicy came to be synonymous with natural theology (theologia naturalis) that is, the department of metaphysics which presents the positive proofs for the existence and attributes of God and solves the opposing difficulties. Theodicy, therefore, may be defined as the science which treats of God through the exercise of reason alone. It is a science because it systematically arranges the content of our knowledge about God and demonstrates, in the strict sense of the word, each of its propositions. But it appeals to nature as its only source of proof, whereas theology sets forth our knowledge of God as drawn from the sources of supernatural revelation.^[6]

Theodicies[link]

Augustinian theodicy[link]

Augustine of Hippo proposed a theodicy reconciling God's goodness with evil present in the world. He argued that evil does not exist in itself, but is a privation, or going wrong, of goodness. He argued that evil exists as a result of free will of either humans or angels and, as a result, all evil is either sin or the punishment of sin.^[7] Aquinas agreed with Augustine and suggested that evil must exist for the appreciation of goodness: if there is no suffering, freedom from suffering cannot be truly appreciated.^[8] Like Augustine, Aquinas believed that evil does not exist independently and can only be understood in terms of goodness, which does exist. He thus saw evil as a deviation from goodness.

Irenaean theodicy[link]

Irenaeus expressed ideas which explained the existence of evil as necessary for human development. Irenaeus argued that human creation was split into two parts: humans were made first in the image, then like likeness, of God. The image of God consists of having the potential to achieve moral perfection, whereas the likeness of God is the achievement of that perfection. To achieve moral perfection, Irenaeus suggested that humans must have free will. To achieve such free will, humans must experience suffering and God must be at an epistemic distance (a distance of knowledge) from humanity. Therefore, evil exists to allow humans to develop as moral agents. ^[9] In the twentieth century, John Hick collated the ideas of Irenaeus into a distinct theodicy. He argued that the world exists as a "vale of soul-making", and that suffering and evil must therefore occur. He argued that human goodness is developed through the experience of evil and suffering.^[10]

Post-Holocaust[link]

The Holocaust performed by Nazi Germany during World War II prompted a reconsideration of theodicy in Christian and Jewish circles.^[11] French Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas declared theodicy to be "blasphemous", arguing that it is the "source of all immorality".^[12] Levinas insisted that, since the Holocaust, there can be no absolute morality.

Professor of theology David R. Blumenthal, in his book Facing the Abusing God (1993), has drawn on data from the field of child abuse and proposed "worship of God through protest" (which could be characterized as misotheism) as a legitimate response of survivors of both the Holocaust and child abuse.^[13] Despite the term "abuse" being new in Jewish theology, the arguments connected to it have a long tradition in Jewish theology.^[14]

In 1998, Jewish theologian Zacahry Braiterman wrote (God) After Auschwitz, in which he coined the term anti-theodicy.^[15] In the book, Braiterman referred to a trend which he saw to be developing in post-war Europe, and defined anti-theodicy as a rejection of any meaningful relationship between God and suffering.^[16] Anti-theodicy therefore puts complete blame for evil on God, but rises from an individual's belief in God. Anti-theodicy has been likened to Job's protests in the book of Job.^[15]

Cosmodicy and anthropodicy[link]

A cosmodicy is an attempt to justify the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil. Similarly, an anthropodicy attempts to justify the fundamental goodness of human nature in the face of the evils produced by humans.

Considering the relationship between theodicy and cosmodicy, Johannes van der Ven argued that the choice between theodicy and cosmodicy is a false dilemma.^[17] Philip E. Devenish proposed what he described as "a nuanced view in which theodicy and cosmodicy are rendered complementary, rather than alternative concepts".^[18] Theologian J. Matthew Ashley described the relationship between theodicy, cosmodicy and anthropodicy:

"In classical terms, this is to broach the problem of theodicy: how to think about God in the face of the presence of suffering in God's creation. After God's dethronement as the subject of history, the question rebounds to the new subject of history: the human being. As a consequence, theodicy becomes anthropodicy — justifications of our faith in humanity as the subject of history, in the face of the suffering that is so inextricably woven into the history that humanity makes."^[19]

Cosmodicy has been identified as a major theme in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.^[20]

See also[link]

• Flannery O'Connor
• Problem of evil, answers and theodicies

References[link]

Bibliography[link]

• Birnbaum, David (1989). God and evil: a unified theodicy/theology/philosophy. KTAV Publishing House. ISBN 978-0-88125-307-8. 
• Davis, Stephen T. (2001). Encountering evil: live options in theodicy. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-22251-2. 
• Gibbs, Robert; Wolfson, Elliot (2002). Suffering religion. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-26612-3. 
• Svendsen, Lars Fr. H.; Pierce, Kerri A. (2010). A philosophy of evil. Dalkey Archive Press. ISBN 1-56478-571-8. 
• Leibniz, Gottfried (1734). Theodicy. 
• Marty, Charles; Taliaferro (2010). Dictionary of Philosophy of Religion. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4411-1197-5. 
• Patterson, David; Roth, John (2005). Fire in the ashes: God, evil, and the Holocaust. University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-98547-3. 
• Pinnock, Sarah Katherine (2002). Beyond theodicy: Jewish and Christian continental thinkers respond to the Holocaust. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-5523-4. 
• Sharma, Arvind (2006). A primal perspective on the philosophy of religion. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-5013-8. 
• Stump, Eleonore (1999). Philosophy of religion: the big questions. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-20604-0. 

External links[link]

• Brown, Paterson. "Religious Morality", Mind, 1963.
• Brown, Paterson. "Religious Morality: a Reply to Flew and Campbell", Mind, 1964.
• Brown, Paterson. "God and the Good", Religious Studies, 1967.
• Catholic Encyclopedia: Theodicy
• The Polkinghorne Reader : Science, Faith, and the Search for Meaning (Edited by Thomas Jay Oord) (SPCK and Templeton Foundation Press, 2010) ISBN 1-59947-315-1 and ISBN 978-0-281-06053-5

Dinesh D'Souza
Born	(1961-04-25) April 25, 1961 (age 51) Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Residence	Fairbanks Ranch, California New York City, New York
Nationality	United States
Ethnicity	Indian
Education	Dartmouth College
Occupation	Writer, speaker, college president
Employer	The King's College (New York)
Known for	Christian apologetics, political commentary
Religion	Evangelical Christian
Spouse	Dixie Brubaker
Children	Danielle
Website
www.dineshdsouza.com

Dinesh D'Souza (Konkani: दिनेश डिसूज़ा: born April 25, 1961) is an author and public speaker and a former Robert and Karen Rishwain Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.^[1] He is currently the President of The King's College in New York City.^[2] D'Souza is a noted Christian apologist and conservative writer and speaker. He is the author of numerous New York Times best-selling books. He was born and raised Catholic, but is now an Evangelical Christian.^[3]

Life and career[link]

Early life and career[link]

D'Souza was born in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, to Goan Catholic parents from the state of Goa in Western India.^[4] He arrived in the United States in 1978, originally through a Rotary International program, attending Patagonia Union High School in Patagonia, Arizona, and then Dartmouth College, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa in English in 1983.^[5][6]

According to Boston Globe journalist Peter S. Canellos, in 1981, D'Souza published the names of officers of the Gay Student Alliance in an article for The Dartmouth Review, including the names of those who were still closeted.^[7]

While at Dartmouth, D'Souza became the editor of a conservative monthly called The Prospect. The paper and its writers ignited much controversy during D'Souza's editorship by, among other things, criticizing the College's affirmative action policies.^[8] He first became known as a writer for the Dartmouth Review, which was subsidized by several conservative organizations not affiliated with Dartmouth.^{[citation needed]}

After his time in Dartmouth, D'Souza moved to Washington, D.C., where he served from 1985 to 1987 as an editor of Policy Review, an influential conservative journal then published by the Heritage Foundation (and since acquired by the Hoover Institution).^[6] In "The Bishops as Pawns," D'Souza theorized that U.S. Catholic bishops were being manipulated by American liberals in agreeing to oppose the U.S. military buildup and use of power abroad and actually knew very little about these subjects to which they were lending their religious credibility, writing:

Interviews with these bishops suggest that they know little or nothing about the ideas and proposals to which they are putting their signature and lending their religious authority. The bishops are unfamiliar with existing defense and economic programs, unable to identify even in general terms the Soviet military capability, ignorant of roughly how much of the budget currently goes to defense, unclear about how much should be reallocated to social programs, and innocent of the most basic concepts underlying the intelligent layman's discussion of these questions.^[9]

In 1988 D'Souza left the magazine to serve as an advisor in Ronald Reagan's White House. He joined the American Enterprise Institute in 1989, where he was the institute's John M. Olin fellow, before later joining the Hoover Institution as its Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow.^[6]

Social issues[link]

D'Souza is a noted conservative, and defines conservatism in the American sense as "conserving the principles of the American Revolution."^[10] In Letters to a Young Conservative, written as an introduction to conservative ideas for youth, D'Souza argues that it is a blend of classical liberalism and ancient virtue, in particular, "the belief that there are moral standards in the universe and that living up to them is the best way to have a full and happy life." He also argues against what he calls the modern liberal belief that "human nature is intrinsically good," and thus that "the great conflicts in the world...arise out of terrible misunderstandings that can be corrected through ongoing conversation and through the mediation of the United Nations."^[11]

D'Souza challenges beliefs and projects such as affirmative action and social welfare. In the book Illiberal Education, D'Souza argued that intolerance of conservative views is common at many universities.

He has attributed many modern social problems to what he calls the "cultural left". In his recent book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, he wrote that:

The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11 ... the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the non-profit sector and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world.^[12]

D'Souza's book What's So Great About America (ISBN 0-142-00301-8) (Penguin, 2003), defends his adopted country against the criticisms that have been directed at it in the last couple of decades. In particular, he argues against the criticisms leveled by the Islamic world, domestic multiculturalists, those seeking slavery reparations, and especially America's left wing. Instead, he contends, Americans themselves are too critical and take for granted the blessings bestowed on them by living within the borders of the United States.^[13]

He also takes this a step further and challenges the notion that all world cultures are equal. "If one begins with the multicultural premise that all cultures are equal, then the world as it is makes very little sense," he says. "Some cultures have completely outperformed others in providing the things that all people seek – health, food, housing, security and the amenities of life."^[13]

D'Souza has also criticised aspects of feminism in Letters to a Young Conservative, writing that:

The feminist error was to embrace the value of the workplace as greater than the value of the home. Feminism has endorsed the public sphere as inherently more constitutive of women’s worth than the private sphere. Feminists have established as their criterion of success and self-worth an equal representation with men at the top of the career ladder. The consequence of this feminist scale of values is a terrible and unjust devaluation of women who work at home.^[14]

In an interview with Enter Stage Right, he claimed that same-sex marriage did not work because "Marriage does not civilize men. Women do. This point is even evident in the gay community: it helps to explain why lesbians are generally much better than male homosexuals in sustaining long-term relationships. The reason that society privileges marriage and gives it a special legal status is because marriage is the only known incubator for the raising of children."^[15]

Christianity[link]

In a Christian Science Monitor article, he stated that "the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for – indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to – the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity."^[16] D'Souza often speaks against atheism, nonbelief, and secularism. The most elaborate presentation of his views concerning these topics can be found in his book What's so Great about Christianity, published in 2007.

D'Souza says "living creatures are the products of intelligent design," but is not a proponent of the organized Intelligent Design (ID) movement, as he does not consider ID to be a satisfactory alternative to the theory of evolution.^[17] He argues that belief in the afterlife and in a supreme being are reasonable conclusions given the evidence available, and that atheists have misrepresented the case for Christianity on many fronts. He has argued for dualist Panentheism^[18] which is in conflict with traditional Christianity.

In a Catholic Education Resource Center article, he shared his belief on the separation of church and state: "Groups like the ACLU, with the acquiescence if not collusion of the courts, are actively promoting a jurisprudence of anti-religious discrimination. In a way the Supreme Court has distorted the Constitution to make religious believers of all faiths into second-class citizens." D'Souza argues that by enforcing the separation of church and state, the government unfairly promotes secularism.^[19] More clearly, D'Souza states, "Today courts wrongly interpret separation of church and state to mean that religion has no place in the public arena, or that morality derived from religion should not be permitted to shape our laws. Somehow freedom for religious expression has become freedom from religious expression. Secularists want to empty the public square of religion and religious-based morality so they can monopolize the shared space of society with their own views."^[20] However, the ACLU states that it has a history of defending the free exercise rights of various religious groups, including those of Christians.^[21][22]

D'Souza stated that he has studied radical Islam for three to four years^[23] and read the Qur'an.^{[24][unreliable source?]}

D'Souza debated Robert Spencer about Islam on March 1, 2007 at the Conservative Political Action Conference and labelled Spencer an "Islamophobe". D'Souza made the following arguments:

While Spencer did not rebut several of D'Souza's talking points and ostensible factual evidence during the debate, he did address these immediately afterword, in an interview conducted by his ally, Pamela Geller.^[26]

Abu Ghraib[link]

With regard to the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, D'Souza asserted that the abuse to the prisoners was due to the "sexual immodesty of liberal America" and that Abu Ghraib reflected "the values of a debauched liberalism run amok." Dinesh also claims that had Charles Graner and Lynndie England been "professors at an elite liberal arts college, their videotaped orgies might easily have become the envy of academia. If they were artists staging these pictures in a loft in Soho they could have been hailed as pioneers and encouraged by leftist admirers to apply for a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts."^[27]

Barack Obama[link]

At the conclusion of a commentary article for Forbes magazine about President Barack Obama, D'Souza writes: "...[O]ur President is trapped in his father's time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father's dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost."^[28]

Media appearances[link]

D'Souza has appeared on CNN,^[29][30] Glenn Beck, ABC's Nightline, CBS's Face the Nation, Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, Politically Incorrect, and CNBC's Dennis Miller.^{[citation needed]} On November 30, 2007, he debated Tufts University professor Daniel Dennett at Tufts on whether or not God was a man made invention.^[31]

During an interview on The Colbert Report on January 16, 2007, while promoting his book, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, D'Souza maintained that liberals were not without fault in the September 11, 2001, attacks. He says liberals’ "penchant for interference" had a decided affect in convincing the Carter administration to withdraw support from the Shah, which brought on Muslim fundamentalists control of the Iranian government. He also stated that the distorted representation of American culture on television is one source of resentment of the U.S by Muslims worldwide. D'Souza believes that traditional Muslims are not too different from traditional Jews and Christians in America. Towards the end of the interview he admitted that he and Islamic militants share some of the same negative beliefs about liberal Americans.^[32]

On May 15, 2009, D'Souza debated atheist Peter Singer at Princeton University. The debate was hosted by the Fixed Point Foundation and was titled "Can There Be Morality without God?"^[33] On October 7, 2009, D'Souza debated Bart Ehrman at UNC-Chapel Hill. The debate was also hosted by the Fixed Point Foundation and was titled "God and the Problem of Suffering: The Debate."^[34] On April 7, 2010, D'Souza debated Christopher Hitchens at the University of Notre Dame in Notre Dame, Indiana. The debate was entitled "The God Debate at Notre Dame: Is Religion the Problem?"^[35] On October 12, 2011, D'Souza debated David Silverman at the University of Pennsylvania. The debate was titled "Is Christianity Good for America?"^[36]

Authorship[link]

In early 2007, D'Souza published The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11, in which he argues that the American cultural left was in large part responsible for the Muslim anger that led to the September 11 attacks.^[12] He argues that Muslims do not hate America because of its freedom and democracy, but because they perceive America to be imposing its moral depravity (support for sexual licentiousness) on the world.^[37] The conclusion of the book, as stated by D'Souza in the introduction, is that "[t]he Bush administration and the conservatives must stop promoting American popular culture because it is producing a blowback of Muslim rage. With a few exceptions, the right should not bother to defend American movies, music, and television. From the point of view of traditional values, they are indefensible. Moreover, why should the right stand up for the left’s debased values? Why should our people defend their America? Rather, American conservatives should join the Muslims and others in condemning the global moral degeneracy that is produced by liberal values."^[38] The book was criticized in major American newspapers and magazines and called, among other things, "the worst nonfiction book about terrorism published by a major house since 9/11"^[39] and "a national disgrace."^[40]

D'Souza's book caused a controversy in the conservative movement, invoking a barrage of attacks back and forth between D'Souza and his conservative critics who widely mocked the thesis of his book, that the cultural left was responsible for 9/11. In response to his critics, he posted a 6,500-word essay on National Review Online,^[41] and NRO subsequently published a litany of responses from conservative authors who accused D'Souza of character assassination, elitism and pseudointellectualism.^[42]

His latest book, The Roots of Obama's Rage, was released in September 2010 and explores President Barack Obama's past and D'Souza's theories about the reasons behind Obama's beliefs. D'Souza appeared on Glenn Beck on September 30 to explain some of his theories.^[43] His Christian apologetics books, What's So Great About Christianity and Life After Death: The Evidence, were both New York Times Best Sellers.^[44][45]

Personal life[link]

In 1992, D'Souza married Dixie Brubaker, whom he first met during his time in Washington, D.C. They have one daughter, Danielle, and resided in Fairbanks Ranch, California. They recently moved to New York City^[6]

Bibliography[link]

Books[link]

Books authored by Dinesh D'Souza include:

• 1984: Falwell, Before the Millennium: A Critical Biography, Regnery Publishing (ISBN 0-89526-607-5)
• 1986: The Catholic Classics (ISBN 0-87973-545-7)
• 1987: My Dear Alex: Letters From The KGB (with Gregory Fossedal), Regnery Publishing (ISBN 0-89526-576-1)
• 1991: Illiberal Education (ISBN 0-684-86384-7)
• 1995: The End of Racism (ISBN 0-684-82524-4)
• 1997: Ronald Reagan: How An Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader (ISBN 0-684-84823-6)
• 2000: The Virtue of Prosperity (ISBN 0-684-86815-6)
• 2002: What's So Great About America, Regnery Publishing (ISBN 0-89526-153-7)
• 2002: Letters to a Young Conservative (ISBN 0-465-01734-7)
• 2007: The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 (ISBN 0-385-51012-8)
• 2007: What's So Great About Christianity, Regnery Publishing (ISBN 1-596-98517-8)
• 2009: Life After Death: The Evidence (ISBN 978-1596980990)
• 2010: The Roots of Obama's Rage, Regnery Publishing (ISBN 9781596986251)
• 2012: Godforsaken: Bad things happen, is there a God who cares? yes, here's proof, Tyndale House (ISBN 978-1414324852)

Dinesh D'Souza has also contributed to:

• 2008: Foreword to Conspiracies and the Cross by Timothy Paul Jones, Frontline Books (ISBN 1-599-79205-2)

Articles[link]

Articles written by Dinesh D’Souza include:

• "Moon's Planet: The Politics and Theology of the Unification Church"
• "Ten Great Things About America"
• "How Ronald Reagan Won The Cold War"
• "Technology And Moral Progress"
• "We the Slaveowners: In Jefferson's America, Were Some Men Not Created Equal?"
• "The Self Esteem Hoax"
• "Two Cheers For Colonialism"
• "Reagan Versus The Intellectuals"
• "10 things to celebrate: Why I'm an anti-anti-American"
• "God Knows Why Faith is Thriving"
• "How Obama Thinks", Forbes, 2010-09-27. Retrieved 2010-11-29.
• "Why Barack Obama is an anti-colonialist"

References[link]

External links[link]

• Dinesh D'Souza Official Web Site.
• Dinesh D'Souza at NNDB.
• Dinesh D'Souza at the Internet Movie Database
• Q&A: Dinesh D'Souza on Life After Death by Paul Kengor
• "What's So Great About Christianity" Interview with Christian author Timothy Paul Jones.
• Audio interview with National Review Online
• "The Controversialist", San Diego Reader, April 14, 2005 (profile on Dinesh D'Souza).
• "Is Christianity the Problem?" debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens at The King's College, October 22, 2007.
• "Is Christianity Good for the World?" debate with Michael Shermer at Oregon State University, October 15, 2007, Part 1, Part 2.
• "God Knows Why Faith is Thriving", San Francisco Chronicle, October 22, 2006 (opinion article by Dinesh D'Souza).
• "Equal Opportunity: The American Dilemma," debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Tim Wise at The Evergreen State College, November 21, 1996.
• Booknotes interview with D'Souza on The Virtue of Prosperity, January 14, 2001.
• In Depth interview with D'Souza, February 4, 2007

Karl P. Ameriks (born 1947) is an American philosopher. He is the McMahon-Hank Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. Ameriks studied at Yale University, A.B., summa cum laude (1968), Ph.D. (1973), where he wrote his thesis under the direction of Karsten Harries. He is regarded as one of the foremost scholars of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and has written widely in the history of continental and modern philosophy. Ameriks co-edits the series Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2009.^[1]

Bibliography[link]

• Kant's Theory of Mind: An Analysis of the Paralogisms of Pure Reason (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982; expanded ed., 2000)
• Kant and the Fate of Autonomy: Problems in the Appropriation of the Critical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000)
• Interpreting Kant’s Critiques (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003)
• Kant and the Historical Turn: Philosophy as Critical Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006)
• Kant's Elliptical Path (Forthcoming from Oxford University Press)

See also[link]

• American philosophy
• List of American philosophers

References[link]

External links[link]

• University of Notre Dame Faculty Bio

This biography of an American philosopher is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v t e