Wednesday, April 27, 2011


Revisions on Pinn on Argument from Evil paper,

due at time of final, along with other paper: Tuesday, May 3, 1PM

Here are some questions you need to ask yourself to revise or rewrite, or redo, your paper:

·         Is my paper an essay? Does it have an introduction? A conclusion? Multiple paragraphs? Does each paragraph focus on a main idea?

·         Could I read my paper out loud to people not familiar with the topics and they would understand it?

·         Could I construct an outline of my essay to show that it has a structure?

·         Does my essay address all the areas of the assignment? Do I take enough words to do that?

·         Does my paper show an understanding of the argument from evil and various responses to it?

·         Does my paper show that you have read the Pinn book and understand the theodicies he discusses there?

·         Do I show that I understand common responses to various theodicies, i.e., objections that people raise to them?

·         Do I write in grammatical sentences with no spelling errors?

                                                               i.      Do questions have question marks?

                                                             ii.      If I have quotes do I use open and close quotes? Do I put the page number?

                                                           iii.      Are any random words capitalized?

 

 

Paper on Arguments from Evil

Please write an essay, due Friday, April 22, in class where you do all the following:
0. Read the two reviews of Pinn that I posted online on the blog at http://philosophy410.blogspot.com/

1. Develop a general argument for non-existence of God from the existence of certain kinds of evils. This version of the argument should be the strongest version you can develop (e.g., a version of the evidential argument from evil). You should reference your book and the assigned article to develop of this argument.

2. Present Pinn's version of the argument from evil: explain what kind of evils he claims are evidence to rethink the nature and existence of God and why he thinks this.

3. Present at least five responses to this argument from evil, i.e., responses to try to explain why this (or these) argument(s) from evil is (or are) not sound. At least three of these responses should be ones that Pinn discusses (and should be, in your view, the strongest responses that Pinn discusses). Some of these responses are theodices.

4. Explain whether any, or all, of these responses are successful and why. Fully explain and defend your views from possible objections. So, you must raise objections that someone who disagreed with you would raise and respond to them, trying to explain why the objection does not show that your view is mistaken.
5. Explain whether any of the objections raised by the two reviewers of Pinn’s book are strong or not.

So, overall, you should explain what difference, if any, the recognition of various kinds of evils -- especially those resulting from slavery, racism, etc. -- should make to one's belief that God exists or does not exist (and/or what God is like, what his nature and abilities are), from a rational or intellectual point of view.

You essays should be organized and structured so as to ensure that you address all the issues above. You should be thorough and explain everything fully: assume that your reader is not at all familiar with these issues. Your paper should be free of grammatical and spelling errors. It should be word processed, double spaced, and stapled.

Monday, April 25, 2011



Final Writing Assignment
Philosophy of Religion

Due for Graduating Seniors this Friday by 2 PM, in Dr. Nobis's box in the Philosophy department. Everyone is, due at the final time which is Tuesday, May 3, 1-3 PM.

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?
WHAT SHOULD YOU BELIEVE?

A general proposal for what you should believe is this: you should believe something if, and only, if you have good reasons, good evidence, good arguments and so forth in favor for belief. We could call this view “evidentialism,” since it says we should have evidence for our beliefs in order for them to be rational, reasonable, justified, such that we ought to believe them, and so forth.

This final assignment asks you to critically reflect on what you *actually*, *currently* believe concerning religious beliefs and compare this to what you think you *should* believe concerning religious beliefs and discuss whether your religious view *should* change.

Thus, you must:
  • identify your current religious views,
  • explain and develop the “evidentialist standard,”
  • explain whether the evidentialist standard should be accepted or not – whether it applies to all beliefs or not and why;
  • explain whether your religious beliefs meet the evidentialist standard or not, and why;
  • and, thus, explain whether your religious beliefs are rational, reasonable, justified, such that you ought to belief them, and so forth;
  • and, explain whether your religious beliefs should change or not and why.

There is no set page requirement, but it would likely take at least 4 pages to adequately address these issues in sufficient detail and comprehensiveness.

Friday, April 22, 2011

Remember, the paper on Pinn is due Monday. See assignment below if you missed it.
Hi,
For next Monday, please read and write detailed summaries of the last two chapters in the God Dialogues books, first the chapter on Pascal's wager and then the final chapter on faith and rationality.

Again, I am seeking potential co-authors for an article that is largely a review of the Pinn book. If interested, let me know.
Thanks, NN

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Paper

Paper on Arguments from Evil

Please write an essay, due Friday, April 22, in class where you do all the following:
0. Read the two reviews of Pinn that I posted online on the blog at http://philosophy410.blogspot.com/

1. Develop a general argument for non-existence of God from the existence of certain kinds of evils. This version of the argument should be the strongest version you can develop (e.g., a version of the evidential argument from evil). You should reference your book and the assigned article to develop of this argument.

2. Present Pinn's version of the argument from evil: explain what kind of evils he claims are evidence to rethink the nature and existence of God and why he thinks this.

3. Present at least five responses to this argument from evil, i.e., responses to try to explain why this (or these) argument(s) from evil is (or are) not sound. At least three of these responses should be ones that Pinn discusses (and should be, in your view, the strongest responses that Pinn discusses). Some of these responses are theodices.

4. Explain whether any, or all, of these responses are successful and why. Fully explain and defend your views from possible objections. So, you must raise objections that someone who disagreed with you would raise and respond to them, trying to explain why the objection does not show that your view is mistaken.
5. Explain whether any of the objections raised by the two reviewers of Pinn’s book are strong or not.

So, overall, you should explain what difference, if any, the recognition of various kinds of evils -- especially those resulting from slavery, racism, etc. -- should make to one's belief that God exists or does not exist (and/or what God is like, what his nature and abilities are), from a rational or intellectual point of view.

You essays should be organized and structured so as to ensure that you address all the issues above. You should be thorough and explain everything fully: assume that your reader is not at all familiar with these issues. Your paper should be free of grammatical and spelling errors. It should be word processed, double spaced, and stapled.
 

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Reminder: Why Lord presentations start tomorrow!

Make sure you remember where you are on the schedule and what group you are part of!

As I mentioned yesterday, please try to point us toward discussion that is most relevant to the philosophical problem or argument from evil. It can be useful to explain when and why other aspects of the chapter that are not immediately relevant to that issue.

Friday, March 25, Morehouse, Sale Hall Rm. 105, 2 PM sharp


Vance RicksAre Online “Friends”Friends?

Can online relationships be “real” friendships? Arguments tied to concepts such as authenticity, activity, and embodiment say “no.” After discussing some of the roles that computer-based technologies play in interpersonal relationships, Professor Vance Ricks explains why he finds those arguments ultimately unpersuasive.

Vance Ricks, Associate Professor of Philosophy,
Guilford College, Greensboro, NC

Professor Vance attended Stanford University and received his Ph.D. in philosophy, writing his dissertation on the subject of friendship. He has taught at Guilford since autumn 1998.  He teaches courses on a variety of philosophical subjects, consistent with his interests:  ethics; informal logic; philosophical perspectives on sexuality; computer ethics; and philosophical  perspectives on mind and consciousness.  Vance is currently writing a manuscript on the meta-ethical views of one of his favorite philosophers, the 19th-century English author John Stuart Mill.  His next project is an article about online friendships. 
This flyer is also available here: http://goo.gl/1Y36n

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Monday we are moving onto the Pinn book. I will discuss the preface and introduction. There is a detailed writing assignment on the Howard-Snyder article due Monday.

Wednesday we will move on to student presentations. Here is the current schedule:


“Why Lord Why?” Book Presentation
MWF 10am
Wednesday 3.23.11
Chp 1. Early Spirituals
1. Kristen
2. Joseph
3. Junior
Friday 3.25.11
Chp 2. 19th Century Black Thought
1. Kyle
2. Adam
3.Mark Miller
Monday 3.28.11
Chp 3. Black Suffering in The 20th Century
1. Chavis
2.Major
3.Chaina
Wednesday 3.30.11
Chp 4. Alternative Theological Views
1. Joshua
2. Mr. Z
3. Reginald Sharpe
Friday 4.1.11
Chp 5. Blues Rap etc..
1. “The Trinity”
2. “The Trinity”
3. “The Trinity”
Monday 4.4.11
Chp 6. Black Humanism and Black Religion
1.Robert
2.Rahmel
3.Kyle

Monday, March 14, 2011

Welcome back!
Let's get back to the grindstone with Philosophy of Religion!
I'd like us to read and discuss this article, "Theodicy" for Wednesday and Friday:

http://faculty.wwu.edu/howardd/Theodicyforclark.pdf

Please write a detailed summary of that article for next Monday.
Also, make sure you have read The God Dialogues, Ch. 7.

Next we will move on to Why Lord? next week. I will ask students to do presentations on many of the chapters of that book, beginning next Wednesday.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Test Monday

Exam Monday

On Monday, February 28, there will be an exam in this class.

This exam provides an opportunity to demonstrate that you deeply understand the various arguments for God's existence that we have discussed in class and read about through the various assigned readings.

To demonstrate this understanding, you will be asked to:
  • state and explain some specific arguments (e.g., a version of the design argument, a version of the cosmological argument, a moral argument, etc.: you must review the readings to identify all the arguments we have discussed prior to the ontological argument [which will not be on the exam]);
  • to do this, you must give the argument's conclusion, as well as the premises, and present this in a manner where the premises lead to the conclusion;
  • you must be able to explain at least three objections to the argument, i.e., reasons to think that a premise is false or reasons to think that there is insufficient reason to accept some premise;
  • these objections must be directed at specific premises: they cannot be vague complaints, concerns or rhetorical questions about the arguments.
  • You must explain whether these objections are good objections, i.e., whether they show that the argument is unsound or weak.
  • You need to conclude by explaining whether the argument is sound or strong or not and why, given your previous discussion.
The exam will be in class. It will be from 10-10:50. Any late students will not get any extra time. Students who miss the exam without an approved, written excuse from the dean will fail the exam: there will be no make up exam for them.

Students will be able to use any graded homework they have turned in for this course. No other exam aides will be permitted, however.

Students are encouraged to form study groups to prepare for the exam.

Exams will be graded on the basis of whether the student demonstrates that he or she has excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor understanding of the arguments and the critical discussion of the arguments.

Monday, February 14, 2011

For Wed., we will move on to the next chapter on Cosmological Arguments. Friday, we will likely get to Ontological arguments, so the writing assignment for Monday is those two chapters.

Here is an encyclopedia article on Design arguments:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/

Design Arguments for the Existence of God

Design arguments are empirical arguments for the existence of God. These arguments typically, though not always, proceed by attempting to identify various empirical features of the world that constitute evidence of intelligent design and inferring God’s existence as the best explanation for these features. Since the concepts of design and purpose are closely related, design arguments are also known as “teleological arguments,” which incorporates “telos,” the Greek word for “goal” or “purpose.”

Design arguments typically consist of (1) a premise that asserts that the material universe exhibits some empirical property F; (2) a premise (or sub-argument) that asserts (or concludes) that F is persuasive evidence of intelligent design or purpose; and (3) a premise (or sub-argument) that asserts (or concludes) that the best or most probable explanation for the fact that the material universe exhibits F is that there exists an intelligent designer who intentionally brought it about that the material universe exists and exhibits F.

There are a number of classic and contemporary versions of the argument from design. This article will cover seven different ones. Among the classical versions are: (1) the “Fifth Way” of St. Thomas Aquinas; (2) the argument from simple analogy; (3) Paley’s watchmaker argument; and (4) the argument from guided evolution. The more contemporary versions include: (5) the argument from irreducible biochemical complexity; (6) the argument from biological information; and (7) the fine-tuning argument.

Table of Contents

  1. The Classical Versions of the Design Argument
    1. Scriptural Roots and Aquinas’s Fifth Way
    2. The Argument from Simple Analogy
    3. Paley’s Watchmaker Argument
    4. Guided Evolution
  2. Contemporary Versions of the Design Argument
    1. The Argument from Irreducible Biochemical Complexity
    2. The Argument from Biological Information
    3. The Fine-Tuning Arguments
      1. The Argument from Suspicious Improbability
      2. The Confirmatory Argument
  3. The Scientifically Legitimate Uses of Design Inferences
  4. References and Further Reading

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Friday we will finish Ch. 2.

Monday we will move onto Ch. 3. A writing assignment on Ch. 3 is due Monday.

Monday, February 7, 2011

Wed

For Wed., we will continue our discussion of design arguments from Chapter 2.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Friday and Beyond

For Friday, we will briefly finish up discussion of GD (God Dialogues) Ch. 1. Please bring questions and comments about this material.
Please read this "Bible Quotes" page, which I handed out in class: http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/biblequotes.htm
Please re-read the William Lane Craig section on "moral arguments" from the handout last week from Christianity Today. The link is below.

We will then move onto GD Ch. 2. A detailed summary of that chapter is due in class (not after class) Monday.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

For Wed. and Beyond

Wednesday we will finish discussing Ch. 1 on moral arguments for God's existence. In addition to re-reading the chapter (which I made available online, due to the bookstore problem), I'd encourage you to read this article on The Divine Command theory of ethics: http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/

For Friday and Monday, we will discuss Ch. 2. A detailed writing assignment on that chapter is due this Monday.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Friday

For Friday, we will discuss the first chapter of The God Dialogues. See the email group for how to access the chapter, if you don't have the book yet.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Wednesday

For Wednesday, we will move to the first chapter of the God Dialogues. Hopefully everyone will have the book by then and will have read it.

The writing assignment for Monday is this: from this chapter, (A) what are the issues or topics? (B) what are the arguments presented and discussed? and (C) which arguments are sound and which are unsound? This will take at least 2-3 pages. Remember, these writing assignments are for your benefit, to show that you are acquainted with the material, so being skimpy on them will only shortchange yourself (and hurt your grade).

Friday, January 21, 2011

Reading and writing assignment for Monday

For Monday, read what's below and write a summary of the main concepts and definitions of the concepts:

Philosophical Terms and Methods

PreTest

Philosophy of Religion

Pre-Test / Initial Assessment of Views

Please answer these questions and elaborate on your answers. Feel free to use the back of the page.

  1. What is the concept of God? That is, if God exists, what sort of being (if God would be a ‘being’) exists?

  1. If God(s) exist, how many God(s) exist?

  1. Do Angels and/or Devils exist?

  1. Does God exist?

  1. Does God not exist?

  1. Are there good reasons or strong evidence to believe that God exists? If so, what are some of the best reasons? Why?

  1. Are there good reasons or strong evidence to believe that God does not exist? If so, what are some of the best reasons? Why?

  1. Is there a good reason for each evil thing that happens? If God exists, would he allow an evil (e.g., horrendous undeserved, unjust pain and suffering, at least) only if it serves a “greater good”? Why?

  1. Should you suspend judgment on the question of God’s existence, that is, neither believe that God exists nor believe that God does not exist? Why?

  1. Do some people go to Heaven after death? Do some people go to Hell after death? Why?

  1. Should people hold their religious beliefs on the basis of “faith” or “reason” (or both)?

  1. Concerning people of different religions from yours, and differing religious beliefs, are they mistaken or in some kind of error in having their religious beliefs which differ from your’s?

  1. What are other good “pre-test” questions? How would you answer them?

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Philosophy 410, Philosophy of Religion, Spring 2011

Philosophy 410, Philosophy of Religion, Spring 2011

Philosophy of Religion - 42655 - HPHI 410 - 01

MWF 10:00-10:50 AM, Sale Hall ______

Instructor: Dr. Nathan Nobis; nathan.nobis@gmail.com

Office hours: MW 2-3 PM and by appointment

Course blog and syllabus: http://philosophy410.blogspot.com

Email announcement group: http://groups.google.com/group/morehouse-philosophy-of-religion/

Catalogue Description:

Examination of philosophical questions involved in religion and religious beliefs. Prerequisite: PHI 201 or consent of the instructor.

Extended course description:

In a 2007 article published in the American Philosophical Association’s Newsletter on Philosophy and the Black Experience, the author claims that:

While religion has been at the center of the African-American experience, substantive philosophical questions and issues about theodicy, the epistemological nature of religious beliefs, and even creationism have been avoided.[1]

The purpose of this course is to ensure that this author is mistaken. We will thereby inquire into the “epistemological nature” of religious beliefs, i.e., seek to understand whether religious beliefs – theistic and Christian beliefs, in particular – are supported by strong evidence, good reasons and sound arguments or not. We will evaluate “theodicies,” attempts to explain what (if anything) might justify an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good being in permitting certain kinds of evil, especially the evils of racism, slavery, lynchings, and discrimination: we will read many African American thinkers who address this issue and evaluate arguments for the view that the existence of evils like these give good reason to believe that God does not exist. We will discuss many other philosophical issues that arise from religious belief and practice, such as the existence of hell, the nature of reason and faith, surviving death, and how we should respond to religious diversity and disagreements, whether religious belief is “important” in various senses, and many other issues.

Throughout the course our main methods involve (A) getting very clear on what exact claims we are evaluating (e.g., what is meant by ‘God’?) and (B) patiently, carefully and thoroughly finding and evaluating the reasons given for and against the claim in question (as well as the reasons that might be given in response to those reasons). Philosophy courses require questioning assumptions, seeking reasons and evidence and demand intellectual responsibility, i.e., being careful with what you believe because you wish to believe the truth and effectively pursue it, even if this requires changing your own beliefs. This course offers the opportunity to develop these intellectual skills in identifying and evaluating arguments and cultivating an intellectually virtuous outlook based in the requirement for good reasons for belief and action that can be beneficial for everything you do and who you are.

Two required texts:

1. The God Dialogues: A Philosophical Journey, by Torin Alter and Robert Howell (Oxford, 2011).

2. Why Lord? Suffering and Evil in Black Theology, by Anthony Pinn (Continuum, 1999)

3. A number of articles and handouts will be distributed in class and/or online. The topics of these articles will include:

Divine Hiddenness (if God exists and it’s important that people believe in him, why doesn’t he make himself more obvious?), the Problem of Hell (if God exists and is all loving, could he send anyone to Hell?), religious pluralism (What should we think of people whose religious beliefs differ from our’s? Can their beliefs be true or rational? Can they be mistaken? Should recognition of their beliefs give us reason to lose confidence in our beliefs?) and more readings on the Problem of Evil (If God exists, then why is there so much evil? Does the existence of so much evil – undeserved, unjust pain and suffering, etc.) give some reason to think there is not a God?) and more, including readings in African and African-American philosophy of religion and religion.

Always bring your class materials to class.

Responsibilities:

To succeed in this class, you must be disciplined: are responsible to understand and meet the requirements outlined below and discussed in class:

  • Attendance: Always come to class, as Morehouse College policy requires. Sign the role sheet: if it is not passed to you, then you need to find it. An absence is excused only if you get the instructor an official Morehouse excuse in writing that he can keep.
  • Punctuality: Come to class on time. Lateness will be penalized on your final grade.
  • Preparation: Bring all your books, handouts and other materials – including materials that you must print off from the internet – and have them out on your desk and ready to discuss at the beginning of class.
    • Students who do not bring their materials may be asked to leave, as they are not prepared for class.
  • Doing the Reading: For every hour spent in class, spend at least two hours doing the reading and writing outlines, paraphrases &/or summaries of the readings.
  • Preparation for engaged, production discussion, not passive lectures:
    • Morehouse College is a liberal arts college, not a university. Classes are small and thus we are able to discuss issues and arguments and have a more interactive learning environment. The instructor, therefore, will rarely “lecture” in any traditional sense, since lecturing encourages student passivity, disengagement, and not doing the reading.
    • For a critique of the educational value of lecturing see, “To Lecture or Not to Lecture, an Age-Old Question” at http://www.morehouse.edu/news/archives/001176.html
  • Honesty: Any plagiarism or cheating on any assignment – including any extra credit assignments – will immediately result in failing the course: no exceptions, no excuses.
  • “Help me help you”:
    • The instructor should be informed of medical, family, or other problems that necessitate missing class or that interfere with your work. In addition, students are encouraged to visit with the instructor during his office hours if they are having difficulty reading or understanding the materials presented in class. If you ever have any questions about anything, please just ask!

Assignments and grading:

1. Weekly writing assignments: 25% of grade

The absolute most important thing you can do to succeed in this class is to do the reading and do the reading well. Reading assignments will be announced in class and on the blog and email groups. To encourage you do the readings well and so be prepared for class discussion, each week you will be required to write something on the readings. Details on each week’s assignment will be provided throughout the semester. These will be due each Monday; late writings will be penalized.

2. Two Exams: 50% total grade, 25% each exam.

Either in class or take-home. All of lecture, discussion and reading content is testable. Study guides will be available with possible questions for each exam to help focus your studying. Exams will mostly be short answer and short essay questions. No electronic devices can be used or accessed during tests, nor can you have any books, bags, notes or hats near your desk: all such materials must be left at the front of the room. You are not permitted to leave the classroom and return to keep working on the test, so please plan accordingly (e.g., visit the restroom before the test).

3. A Philosophical Assessment of Your Personal Religious Beliefs (15% of grade)

This assignment will provide an opportunity to identify your own religious beliefs, offer a philosophical assessment and critique of them, respond to this assessment and critique (that is, respond to the strongest objections to your religious beliefs) and identify possible areas for how your views should change, from a rational point of view.

4. Attendance and participation: 10% of grade. Students will, in groups, present and discuss chapters from Pinn, as well as do other presentations. Poor attendance and lateness ensures that you don’t do not do excellently in this class and so cannot earn an A.

Note: A syllabus is not a contract, but rather a guide to course procedures. The instructor reserves the right to alter the course requirements and/or assignments based on new materials, class discussions, or other legitimate pedagogical objectives.

EXACT READINGS WILL BE ANNOUNCED IN CLASS, THE EMAIL GROUP AND ON THE BLOG

Initial readings:

· ONLINE ARTICLE or HANDOUT: Allen Stairs, “A Right To Be Wrong?” http://brindedcow.umd.edu/philosophy/opinions.html

Readings from The God Dialogues, and writing assignments, will be announced soon.

A Right to be Wrong?

By Allen Stairs, U Maryland, Philosophy http://brindedcow.umd.edu/philosophy/opinions.html

I hear a lot of arguments -- on everything from gun control to whether the soul is a substance formed in the fifth dimension. Within these arguments there is a move that gets made often enough to depress my philosopher's soul -- whatever dimension it inhabits. Someone has just had their position skewered and heads for higher ground by huffing "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion."

This doesn't do much for the discussion, but isn't it true for all that? Don't we have a right to our opinions?

It depends on what you mean.

In this country, we are legally entitled to believe anything we like, though whether we may act on all our beliefs is rightly another matter. So far, then, so true: everyone has a legal right to hold and -- subject to remarkably few constraints -- express any opinion. This isn't trivial. In some societies, holding certain opinions can lead to brutal consequences. Most of us, including me, find that appalling, and so we might go further and say: even if the law didn't recognize it, everyone would have a moral right -- a basic human right -- to believe anything at all.

All this is high-minded, but, it leaves something out. We don't think people should be persecuted for what they believe, but typically when people insist on their right to their opinions they aren't being persecuted. What is usually going on is that their views have been challenged, and they've run out of things to say. But my right to an opinion doesn't conflict with your right to argue that I'm wrong.

What we need is another category: not legal rights, not moral rights but "logical rights," to concoct an awkward phrase. Logical rights aren't cheap; the coin of the realm is evidence, judgment and knowledge.

An illustration: some physicists now suspect that quarks have smaller parts. Other than the brief story or two I've read, I know nothing about the evidence and not a whole lot more about quarks themselves. Am I entitled to an opinion on this issue?

It sounds a little odd to say I am. Of course I shouldn't be shot if I start spouting about quarklets, or whatever they might be called. Ignored, perhaps. Or better, reminded that I don't know what I'm talking about. Here we have a clear case of having no logical right to a view. I simply don't know enough to have a basis for an opinion.

This case may be clear, but there is a sort of a slide when it comes to opinions. Most people recognize that a casual opinion about whether it rained in London on July 17th, 1532 is worth nothing. It's a matter of fact that doesn't yield to mere speculation. Most people also recognize that they haven't earned the right to opinions about elementary particles or the number of irreducible representations of the four-dimensional rotation group. These matters call for specialized knowledge. On questions that deal with people, however, caution is more likely to be cast aside. I've heard people who wouldn't know a chromosome if it belted their jeans offer firm opinions about whether homosexuality does or does not have a genetic basis. And when we come to matters of Ultimate Significance, opinions flow like spoiled gravy. Detailed views about the innermost secrets of the universe are as cheap as eggs and nearly as sturdy.

This isn't really surprising and it reveals an interesting tension. Our most anxious concerns are human concerns, earthly and cosmic; we can hardly not to pardon the urge to opine. But this very anxiety might help us to see why reasons and evidence are still important.

First, what you or I think about earthly concerns can affect others. It may not matter what our opinions are on the nature of angels. But consider some less esoteric questions. Are illegal immigrants a drain on the economy? Do lenient divorce laws lead to higher divorce rates? Will banning discrimination against gays undermine the traditional family? None of these questions have obvious answers, but opinions on them abound. People vote on the basis of these opinions. People give money to causes. People organize and people act.

Here someone might object: most of us aren't experts on the issues that influence our votes. For democracy to work, people must participate. Indeed. But presumably democracy works best when people actually have well-considered opinions. Furthermore some opinions are downright vicious. If you think members of (fill in favorite suspect group) are prone to (fill in suspected evil trait) you will probably act accordingly. And if what you think is a mere ill-founded suspicion, you are likely to increase the sum total of human misery for no good reason at all. Whatever the nature of your "right" to such opinions, it can be plain wrong to hold them.

The second point is that even when it comes to the secrets of the universe, we care about truth. And the loftier the matter, the less our mere guesses are worth. To the extent that we do care about truth, we need to keep caring about the credentials of our beliefs. Our logical rights serve our deeply-felt ends.

Should we withhold all opinions until we know that we're right? If we did that, we would do nothing else. None of us can justify all our beliefs. Even the best opinions are fallible things and a brilliant conjecture can be worth a dozen dull facts. Not only that: some criticisms aren't worth the trouble of a response, though distinguishing good criticism from bad is often an art in itself. But what we can do is learn to be more aware of what we don't know. Like Winston Churchill's modest little man, we have much to be modest about when it comes to our beliefs. And when we're called up short, we can stop and think rather than insist on our rhetorical rights. At least, that's my opinion.

--Allen Stairs
stairs@glue.umd.edu

© copyright The Washington Post, 1996



[1] Stephen Ferguson, II, “Teaching Hurricane Katrina: Understanding Divine Racism and Theodicy,” Newsletter on Philosophy and the Black Experience, Fall 2007, Volume 07, Number 1, at http://www.apaonline.org/publications/newsletters/v07n1_Black_02.aspx

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

1. The God Dialogues: A Philosophical Journey [Paperback]

Torin Alter (Author), Robert J. Howell (Oxford UP, 019539559X)

http://www.amazon.com/God-Dialogues-Philosophical-Journey/dp/019539559X

2. Why, Lord?: Suffering and Evil in Black Theology [Paperback]
Anthony B. Pinn

# Publisher: Continuum (October 1, 1999)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 0826412084

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Lord-Suffering-Black-Theology/dp/0826412084/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290093232&sr=1-1