Philosophy 410: Philosophy of Religion

2011-04-27T12:48:00.001-07:00

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/

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/DwightHopkinsreviewofWhyLord.pdf

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/AndersonreviewofWhyLord.pdf

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.

2011-04-25T10:14:00.000-07:00

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.

2011-04-22T10:36:00.001-07:00

Remember, the paper on Pinn is due Monday. See assignment below if you missed it.

2011-04-22T10:30:00.001-07:00

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

Paper

2011-04-13T06:22:00.000-07:00

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/

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/DwightHopkinsreviewofWhyLord.pdf

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/AndersonreviewofWhyLord.pdf

5. Explain whether any of the objections raised by the two reviewers of Pinn’s book are strong or not.

2011-03-22T09:06:00.001-07:00

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.

2011-03-22T08:56:00.001-07:00

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

Are 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

http://www.guilford.edu/academics/departments/philosophy/ricksvance.html

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

2011-03-19T07:39:00.000-07:00

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

2011-03-14T06:41:00.001-07:00

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.

Test Monday

2011-02-23T06:46:00.000-08:00

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.

2011-02-14T11:25:00.001-08:00

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.

2011-02-09T13:55:00.001-08:00

Friday we will finish Ch. 2.

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

Wed

2011-02-07T11:25:00.001-08:00

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

Friday and Beyond

2011-02-02T07:58:00.001-08:00

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.

For Wed. and Beyond

2011-02-01T09:09:00.001-08:00

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.

Friday

2011-01-27T06:19:00.000-08:00

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.

Wednesday

2011-01-25T09:09:00.001-08:00

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).

Reading and writing assignment for Monday

2011-01-21T07:57:00.000-08:00

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

Philosophical Terms and Methods

PreTest

2011-01-21T07:56:00.001-08:00

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.

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

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

Do Angels and/or Devils exist?

Does God exist?

Does God not exist?

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

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?

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

Philosophy 410, Philosophy of Religion, Spring 2011

2011-01-19T06:38:00.001-08:00

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

HANDOUT: The Ethics of Belief , W. K. Clifford
ONLINE ARTICLE or HANDOUT: William Lane Craig, "God Is Not Dead Yet: How current philosophers argue for his existence," Christianity Today, July 2008. At http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.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

[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

2011-01-18T08:44:00.001-08:00

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

2010-04-23T11:17:00.001-07:00

Monday, we will talk about arguments for and against Hell. I will send out some possible readings about this, but you should be sure to read the chapter in Stairs on surviving death, since that would be needed to make it to Heaven or Hell.

Wed. we will discuss the Stairs chapter on religious diversity. I will send out some more readings on that as well

2010-04-19T06:56:00.000-07:00

Final Exam Paper

Your final exam, due at the time of the final, in class, is to write an essay 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/

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/DwightHopkinsreviewofWhyLord.pdf

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/AndersonreviewofWhyLord.pdf

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 the Stairs book on the development 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.

You should hand in a hardcopy and email the instructor a copy, which he will process to check for plagiarism.

2010-04-05T12:44:00.001-07:00

Wed, Jonathan is presenting on the first half of Pinn ch. 3, until MLK.
Friday, Rachel is is presenting on the second half of Pinn ch. 3, from MLK to the end.

2010-03-16T07:46:00.000-07:00

Monday we discussed Pascal's Wager and some things to come down the road such as "Reformed Epistemology" and questions about the nature of faith (vs. reason). Before we address these, however, we are going to take a look at arguments from evil. For Wed., start reading the chapter in Stairs. After that we will read the Pinn book.

Study Guide

2010-02-24T06:51:00.000-08:00

Study guide for in-class Midterm exam next Wednesday, March 3.

We have covered chapters 1-6. You can expect some of these questions:

1. What is the traditional, "classical" concept of God? Explain this concept.
What is it be omnipotent? Explain some of the "puzzles" of omni-potence and the best response(s) to them.

2. Be able to state and explain at least one version of the cosmological argument. Be able to give at least 3 objections to it, i.e., reasons to think that at least one premise is either (a) false, (b) not well supported, (c) otherwise reasonably doubtful.

3. Be able to state and explain at least one version of the design / teleological argument. Be able to give at least 3 objections to it, i.e., reasons to think that at least one premise is either (a) false, (b) not well supported, (c) otherwise reasonably doubtful.

4. Be able to state and explain at least one version of the ontological argument. Be able to give at least 3 objections to it, i.e., reasons to think that at least one premise is either (a) false, (b) not well supported, (c) otherwise reasonably doubtful.

5. Be able to explain an argument that claims that religious beliefs are justified by religious experiences. Be able to give at least 3 objections to it, i.e., reasons to think that at least one premise is either (a) false, (b) not well supported, (c) otherwise reasonably doubtful.

6. What are miracles? Be able to give an argument from alleged miracles to the existence of God. Be able to give at least 3 objections to it, i.e., reasons to think that at least one premise is either (a) false, (b) not well supported, (c) otherwise reasonably doubtful.

2010-02-23T08:27:00.001-08:00

As was mentioned in class Monday, Wednesday we will move back and talk about the chapter on miracles.

2010-02-18T09:45:00.001-08:00

Hi,
Friday we are moving on to the chapter 6 on religious experiences.

2010-02-15T08:00:00.001-08:00

We started talking about ontological arguments today by reading and trying to understand Anselm here; for Wed. we will talk about objections as well as other versions of the argument:

ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

The argument is given below in it's original form (translated by Jonathan Barnes).

From the Proslogium

Therefore, Lord, who grant understanding to faith, grant me that, in so far as you know it beneficial, I understand that you are as we believe and you are that which we believe. Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be imagined.

Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is.

For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his undertanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.
Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding.

And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater. Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be. There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality.

2010-02-08T11:45:00.001-08:00

For Wednesday we will discuss design arguments, Stairs Ch. 2.
Writing assignment due:
- What are design arguments? Explain them.
- Are they sound/strong/compelling?

Some things were said today about writing. I suggest you take a look at this:

Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper

Philosophical writing is different from the writing you'll be asked to do in other courses. Most of the strategies described below will also serve you well when writing for other courses, but don't automatically assume that they all will. Nor should you assume that every writing guideline you've been given by other teachers is important when you're writing a philosophy paper. Some of those guidelines are routinely violated in good philosophical prose (e.g., see the guidelines on grammar, below).

The Elements of Style is also an excellent guide to better writing: http://www.bartleby.com/141/

Monday & Wed.

2010-01-29T11:08:00.000-08:00

Monday and Wed. we will discuss cosmological arguments. Readings include Ch. 3 of Stairs and the Aquinas reading that I passed out in class and sent out on the email group.

Here is a writing assignment due Wed., ideally Monday:
What are cosmological arguments?
Are any of them sound?

2010-01-22T11:28:00.000-08:00

Monday & Wed. we'll finally get started talking about Chapter 1, Concepts of God.

Friday, let's get to the Cosmological Argument chapter (Ch. 3) and take a look at that before Ch. 2 on Design arguments.

We have read and discussed some of this in class:

William Lane Craig, "God Is Not Dead Yet: How current philosophers argue for his existence," Christianity Today, July 2008. At http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html

Logic Handout

2010-01-19T08:23:00.000-08:00

Here is a little logic handout:

http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/arguments.pdf

ATL Undergraduate Philosophy Conference

2010-01-13T08:42:00.001-08:00

The Second Annual Southeast Philosophy Congress invites submissions from undergraduate and graduate students in any area of philosophy. The Congress, hosted by Clayton State University in Morrow, Georgia, runs February 13-14, 2009, with keynote speaker Jack Zupko from Emory University. Presented papers will be published in online and print proceedings.

Talks run 20 minutes, followed by a 10 minute question/answer period. Please email papers, accompanied by a brief abstract, to Dr. Todd Janke: ToddJanke@Clayton.edu. Submission deadline is January 31, 2009. To allow time to plan travel, speakers will be notified immediately upon acceptance and selection will close when all slots are filled. The registration fee of $45.00 includes lunch both days and a print copy of the proceedings.

Spring 2010 Syllabus

2010-01-13T07:58:00.000-08:00

Philosophy 410, Philosophy of Religion, Spring 2010

CRN 47809 - HPHI 410 - 01

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

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

Office hours: MWF 2-3 PM and by appointment

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

Syllabus: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/religion-syl-2010.pdf

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.

Three required texts, all of which are available used, cheaper online (e.g., at Amazon, Abebooks.com, etc.):

1. A Thinker's Guide to the Philosophy of Religion, Allen Stairs and Christopher Bernard Longman; 1st edition (October 7, 2006); please find used if possible.

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

3. A Rulebook for Arguments, by Anthony Weston, Hackett Publishing; any edition

4. Optional, but not ordered by bookstore: Is God a White Racist? A Preamble to Black Theology, 2^nd ed., by William R. Jones (Beacon 1997).

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

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

3. Argumentative Research Paper and Presentation 25% of grade

This provides an opportunity to pursue, in greater detail, a topic in philosophy of religion that you find interesting. Likely the most productive paper for most students will be focused “critical response paper.” This will involve you finding a (ideally recent) article(s) or writing(s) on an issue where an argument is presented and you present, explain and evaluate that argument as sound or unsound and why. 3000 words maximum length. Your topic must be approved by the instructor to ensure appropriateness for this course: failing to do so may result in a zero for the paper. The instructor can help you find topics and writings to evaluate, and you should check the various research tools on the blog. You must also give an organized, clear, and well-thought out presentation to the class on your paper.

4. Attendance and participation: 25% 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.

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

HANDOUT: The Ethics of Belief , W. K. Clifford ,
ONLINE ARTICLE or HANDOUT: William Lane Craig, "God Is Not Dead Yet: How current philosophers argue for his existence," Christianity Today, July 2008. At http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html

In the Rulebook for Arguments: Preface, Introduction and the chapter on Deductive Arguments (VI in the current edition)

Please start reading Stairs: the Introduction and first chapter on the concept of God.

2010-01-05T08:04:00.000-08:00

A Right to be Wrong?

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.

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.

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

link to the source: http://brindedcow.umd.edu/philosophy/opinions.html

2010-01-04T11:12:00.001-08:00

1. A Thinker's Guide to the Philosophy of Religion (Paperback) by Allen Stairs and Christopher Bernard Longman; 1st edition (October 7, 2006); please find used if possible.

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

3. A Rulebook for Arguments, by Anthony Weston, Hackett Publishing; any edition; please find used if possible)

African American Philosophy of Religion Resources

2009-04-28T08:20:00.000-07:00

A working bibliography on African American philosophy of religion:

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/AAphilofreligion.htm

More interesting, some brief notes on Anthony Pinn's book where he reviews and critiques various African American's responses to problems of evil over various periods of American history:

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/Pinn-notes.htm

Spring 2009

2008-12-14T07:55:00.001-08:00

I am offering an advanced ethics class next semester. Here's the book I plan to use; the course will have a philosophical research project as its main focus:

A Companion to Applied Ethics

Edited by: R.G. Frey and Christopher Heath Wellman (Washington University in St. Louis)

Series: Blackwell Companions to Philosophy

Announcement

Now Available Online - visit Blackwell Reference Online at www.blackwellreference.com for more details.

Reviews

"The Companion to Applied Ethics offers accessible essays by many of the leading writers in the field. It is a superb introduction to applied ethics for students and the interested reader alike." <...

More reviews

Description

Applied or practical ethics is perhaps the largest growth area in philosophy today, and many issues in moral, social, and political life have come under philosophical scrutiny in recent years. Taken together, the essays in this volume - including two overview essays on theories of ethics and the nature of applied ethics - provide a state-of-the-art account of the most pressing moral questions facing us today.

Provides a comprehensive guide to many of the most significant problems of practical ethics.
Offers state-of-the-art accounts of issues in medical, environmental, legal, social, and business ethics.
Written by major philosophers presently engaged with these complex and profound ethical issues.

TopTable of Contents

Notes on Contributors.
Preface.
1. The Nature of Applied Ethics: Tom L. Beauchamp
2. Theories of Ethics Stephen: L. Darwall
3. Property Rights and Welfare Redistribution: Jeremy Waldron
4. Civil Disobedience and the Duty to Obey the Law: A. John Simmons
5. Capitalism and Marxism: Richard W. Miller
6. State Punishment and the Death Penalty: David Dolinko
7. Racism: Michele Moody-Adams
8. Sexism: Ann E. Cudd and Leslie E. Jones
9. Affirmative Action: Bernard Boxill and Jan Boxill
10. The Legal Enforcement of Morality: Larry Alexander
11. Hate Crimes, Literature, and Speech: L. W. Sumner
12. Pornography and Censorship: Lori Gruen
13. Dirty Hands: Gerald F. Gaus
14. Sexual Ethics: Alan H. Goldman
15. Gun Control: Lance Stell
16. Citizenship: Wayne Norman and Will Kymlicka
17. Immigration: Michael Blake
18. World Hunger: Hugh LaFollette
19. War and Terrorism: C. A. J. Coady
20. Nationalism and Secession: Christopher Heath Wellman
21. Intergenerational Justice: Clark Wolf
22. Bioethics: Margaret P. Battin
23. Abortion: Margaret Olivia Little
24. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Michael Tooley
25. Reproductive Technology: John D. Arras
26. Genetic Engineering: Dan W. Brock
27. Surrogate Motherhood: Rosemarie Tong
28. Cloning: John Harris
29. Allocation of Medical Resources: H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. and Ana Smith Iltis
30. Experimentation on Human Subjects: Patrick Boleyn-Fitzgerald
31. Disability: Leslie Pickering Francis
32. Moral Status: Mary Anne Warren
33. Killing and Letting Die: Alastair Norcross
34. The Doctrine of Double Effect: R. G. Frey
35. Bad Samaritans, Acts and Omissions: Patricia Smith
36. Moral Dilemmas: N. Ann Davis
37. Education: Amy Gutmann
38. Personal Relationships: Lawrence A. Blum
39. Animals: Jeff McMahan
40. Business Ethics: Patricia H. Werhane and R. Edward Freeman
41. Corporate Responsibility: R. Edward Freeman and Patricia H. Werhane
42. Whistle-blowing: Terrance McConnell
43. Professional Ethics: David Luban
44. Media Ethics: Judith Lichtenberg
45. Computer Ethics: Deborah G. Johnson
46. Engineering Ethics: Michael S. Pritchard
47. Environmental Ethics: Andrew Light
48. Values in Nature: Dale Jamieson
49. The Tragedy of the Commons: David Schmidtz and Elizabeth Willott
50. Global Warming: Robert Hood

A Companion to Applied Ethics

http://www.amazon.com/Companion-Applied-Blackwell-Companions-Philosophy/dp/1405133457

Posting Pinal Paper

2008-12-11T12:11:00.000-08:00

Your final papers were quite good. I ask for the benefit of other students in this course that, if you'd like, you post your paper on this blog as a comment. You can keep your name on it if you'd like or post it without your name, if you'd prefer. But this will allow others students to read your thoughts and, especially, your evaluation of Pinn's arguments.

Final Exam

2008-12-04T06:30:00.000-08:00

The final exam meeting time is Tuesday, December 9th at 1 PM - 3 PM. We will turn in and discuss our final papers. Be there and be there on time!

Remaining Schedule

2008-11-20T06:39:00.000-08:00

Friday: no class because Dr. Nobis has to go to the Mississippi Philosophical Association meeting.

You were given a paper assignment yesterday, so please start work on that.

Monday:
Readings by Pascal on "Pascal's Wager" and reply by Blackburn. Both in Cahn. Since some of Pinn's arguments were "pragmatic" arguments, they are somewhat similar to Pacal's.

Wednesday:
No class due to Thanksgiving.

Monday and Wednesday:
I'd like us to talk about some articles about hell, i.e., the question of whether an all-knowing, all-powerful, all good being could send anyone to Hell, as traditionally understood. I'll post these online and/or give you photocopies.

We might also talk about a short article from Cahn that presents this argument:

1. If God exists and it is important that people believe that God exists, then nearly everyone would firmly believe that there is a God.
2. But not nearly everyone firmly believes there is a God.
3. So probably either God does not exist or it's not important that people believe that God exists.

Final Exam Paper

2008-11-18T08:52:00.000-08:00

Your final exam, due at the time of the final, in class, is to write an essay 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/

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/DwightHopkinsreviewofWhyLord.pdf

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/AndersonreviewofWhyLord.pdf

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.

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.

2008-11-07T08:04:00.000-08:00

Today we discussed Ch. 1 of Pinn's book. Ch 2 is for Monday, Ch. 3 for Wednesday.

We also started reading this article; please read the rest over the weekend:

Teaching Hurricane Katrina: Understanding Divine Racism and Theodicy

Stephen C. Ferguson II
North Carolina A & T State University

http://www.apaonline.org/publications/newsletters/v07n1_Black_02.aspx

Notes on Pinn Preface and Intro

2008-11-04T13:32:00.001-08:00

Notes and commentary on Anthony Pinn’s

Why Lord? Suffering and Evil in Black Theology

Preface and Introduction

Pinn seems to be addressing two logically distinct sets of questions. They are distinct in that answers to one set have no implications for the other (or if they do they connection is not at all obvious). It’s not clear whether Pinn realizes this.[1]

Here is a first set:

“Does the Christian message say anything liberating to a suffering humanity?

Does theological conversation . . make a positive differing in the way the oppressed responding to their existential plight?

Do Christian explanations of human suffering make a ‘material’ and concrete difference?” (p. 10).

These questions are not philosophical questions. They are (once the meaning of the terms is set) empirical questions that would, ideally, be answered by social science. They concern the psychological and social consequences of holding some beliefs, Christian belief, in particular: what kind of practical and psychological consequences do Christian beliefs have on people in terms of how they respond to whatever “existential” plights they are in? Do such beliefs better typically enable people to “cope” or not, compared to alternative beliefs? Do such beliefs tend to lead to flourishing, or to despair? We might call these kinds of questions about beliefs “pragmatic” questions, keeping in mind that they are empirical questions.

Pinn also is concerned with what sorts of beliefs would better (or best) contribute to human “liberation” (p. 11), which is a state of (among other things) psychological, physical, political, economic, existential, etc. well-being (“Liberation entails … the attainment of extended life options and a better developed sense of healthy human worth” (p. 13). One might say, “I have been liberated” or “I have achieved liberation,” and be saying that one doing well, in profound ways.

It appears that Pinn will argue that some kinds of Christian belief often do not lead to “liberation” for those who believe them: in fact, they preclude or detract from such liberation when they encourage complacency and acceptance of non-liberation, e.g., accepting being a slave, accepting racism and discrimination, being taken advantage of, having low expectations for life, accepting dismal conditions, etc. because one thinks that one’s religion condones or requires those attitudes. Whether Christianity often has these consequences again is a question in the psychology or sociology of religion; it requires empirical study.

A second set of questions Pinn asks are purely philosophical and concern what is traditionally called the philosophical “problem of evil” (p. 13). For this reason, we will call these questions about how to respond to the philosophical problem of evil. These questions include the following:

· Does the existence of certain kinds of evils – in particular, evils associated with slavery and racism and its fallout – “contradict” the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all good being, such a God? (Pinn uses the word “contradiction,” [p. 13] but this is likely to strong of a term).

· Is there a “tension” (p. 10) between such evils and believing that God exists? Does the existence of such evils provide evidence that there is not a God?

· Is this argument sound or not? “If God exists, then there probably would not be slavery, racism and similar evils. But there are such evils, so probably God does not exist.”

· What, if anything, would (morally) justify God in permitting the evils of slavery, racism, discrimination, lynchings, etc.?

Answers to this last question are attempts at offering a “theodicy” (p. 13). A theodicy is an attempt to show that the problem of evil is really not a problem, or show why arguments for God’s non-existence from the existence of some kinds of evils is unsound. A theodicy is a proposed explanation for why God would allow some evil, given that – as an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful being – He would apparently be able to prevent the evil and want to, since a good being is opposed to the existence of at least certain kinds of evils, say evils that don’t contribute to greater goods, are not necessary for greater goods, produce greater goods but ones that could be achieved without evils of that magnitude, etc.

(Pinn seems to think the problem of evil and theodicy are the same thing [p. 10; p. 13], but they are not. He also might think the pragmatic questions above are intimately related to the philosophical problem of evil, which they are not).

Some responses to the argument of evil include (pp. 14):

(a) claiming that there is no evil,

(b) that God cannot do anything about it (thus denying or restricting omnipotence and omniscience),

(d) claiming that various goods (e.g., free will, “soul making,” etc.) require the existence of some evil or invariably result in some evil (whether they would require the existence of evils like slavery and racism is surely controversial!) and

(e) thinking that there is no God.

Pinn claims that African-Americans (esp. theologians) often respond to the philosophical problem of evil by claiming (p. 15):

(f) suffering /evil can have “redemptive” consequences (questions: does all suffering and evil have such redemptive consequences? Can these kinds of “redemption” be achieved in other ways without as great of evils?)

a. e.g., Pinn notes that some claim that suffering prepares Black people for “ultimate freedom” (p. 16). But couldn’t they be prepared for this without so much evil? And maybe “ultimate freedom” isn’t so important anyway!? After all, lots of people don’t suffer so much! Will they really miss out on “ultimate freedom,” whatever that is?

b. Other kinds of redemption include “pedagogical lessons such as the correction of character flaws, obtainment of .. skills and talents, and some good which God will make clear in the future” (p. 16).

c. LONG LIST OF “GREATER GOODS” HERE offered by AA’s to explain why God might allow slavery, racism, etc. This book will review these candidate theodicies.

i. Bishopp Henry McNeal Turner proposes that slavery was justified to introduce Africans to Christianity. MLK argues that undeserved suffering is justified because it will contribute to the end of such suffering (p. 17).

(g) God and humans have to work together to lessen evils (comment: this does not address the argument from evil!); God just “persuades”. This is basically to deny God’s power.

(h) God may be a racist and so that’s why blacks suffer more than non-blacks. (comment: this is to claim that God is not good, at least not good to blacks.).

Pinn does not like redemptive suffering theodicies (p. 17). But the reason why he find them “unacceptable” is going to be odd, it appears. He says that he finds them unacceptable because of their pragmatic consequences! He thinks that if you find (instrumental) value in suffering – think that such suffering does lead to greater goods and is necessary for these greater goods – then you will likely be complacent and not work for “liberation.” He thinks that’s a bad thing (and it is!) and so seems to think you should reject redemptive suffering theodices.

This response is odd because whether a claim is true or not (e.g., “evils are justified by greater goods or not”) and whether there is good evidence for a claim has nothing to do with the psychological, emotional, sociological, existential effects it has on people who believe it. E.g., some people claim to find the claims of evolutionary theory to be depressing because, they claim they would feel awful if they weren’t specially created by God 5000 years ago. They might feel that way, but that has no bearing on whether evolutionary theory is true and whether there is good evidence for it.

So, in general, questions about the pragmatic consequences of a belief and its truth value and the quality of the evidence for it are distinct. This has been clear ever since Pascal’s wager, if not sooner. So it’s odd that Pinn responds to the issues in the way he’s going to. Redemptive suffering theodices might be depressing for some in that they somehow reinforce complacency (or they might not!), but they might tell the truth about what justifies various evils.

In the end, Pinn will advocate for Black Humanism. It seems clear he will advocate for it on the basis of its pragmatic effects. Whether he will claim there is good evidence for it, especially for kinds of Humanism that claim God does not exist (atheism) or that we have insufficient evidence to reasonably believe there’s a God or should suspend judgment (skepticism or agnosticism), we will see.

[1] Footnote 1 suggests that he does, since he says he’s unsure whether “theodicy” is the proper term to for his pragmatic / psychological / social questions. Since theodicy is obviously the incorrect term here, at least given the traditional use of that term, it’s unclear why Pinn is hesitant or why he uses the term in the first place.

Arguments against theism from evil / badness

2008-10-26T13:07:00.000-07:00

This last week we have been discussing arguments against God's existence from evil. The assigned readings (and OPS assignments) include Hick, Nagel and Swinburne, but we haven't talked about the details of what they have to say. This "Tale of 12 Officers" has also been distributed in class and we read it Friday:
http://www.vuletic.com/hume/at/12.html

The arguments discussed so far include the following:

The WEAK ARGUMENT from Evil:

1. If God exists, then there would be no evil whatsover, nothing bad at all, not one instance of pain, suffering, injustice, wrongdoing, etc, ever.
2. But there is some evil, some things bad, some instances of pain, suffering, injustice, wrongdoing, etc.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

While (2) is certainly true, this argument is weak because premise (1) seems highly doubtful: an all-knowing, all good-being, all powerful being could (easily) have good reason for allowing some evil or badness. For example, some kinds of personal growth and development seem to depend on overcoming challenges and obstacles, working through struggles that are or involve feelings that are bad when considered in themselves. Also, perhaps an fairly regularly ordered world would have to result in, at least, an occasional stubbed toe and whatnot. (We also wound up thinking about whether accepting (1) would lead you to think that you should plug into The Experience Machine.)

This Weak Argument is sometimes called The Logical Argument from Evil, which attempts to show that God and the existence of any evil or badness are logically incompatible. Almost nobody finds this argument to have any strength any more, if anyone ever did.

This leads us to The More Challenging Argument, also sometimes call The Evidential Argument from Evil because it claims that the existence of certain kinds of evils provide evidence that there is not a God (or perhaps that certain kinds of evils are logically incompatible with God's existence, not just the fact that there is some evil of some kind):

4. If there is a God, then there is no evil that is unjustified or pointless or gratuitous, i.e., badness, pain, suffering, etc. that does not serve a greater good and for which this good could not have been brought about without that particular evil.
5. But there are some unjustified or pointless or gratuitous evils, i.e., badness, pain, suffering, etc. that do not serve a greater good and/or for which this good could have been brought about without that particular evil. (e.g., Holocaust, slavery, Middle Passage, child rape, torture, etc.)
6. Therefore, there is not a God.

Theists tend to accept premise (4). They accept it because they see what an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being would seem to have to do: any being having these attributes would seem to be subject to certain kinds of obligations, imposed by his own nature and abilities.

The challenge then is premise (5). At this point our main concern is trying to figure out what sort of evidence can be given for it, what can be given against it and what sort of replies could be given to each initial case.

Study Guide

2008-10-10T05:21:00.000-07:00

Study guide.

In class exam, Friday, October 17, 2008.

You will be asked to provide answers to a select few of these questions and prompts.

Basic concepts of arguments and logic: what is an argument? What is it for an argument to be valid? What is it for an argument to be sound?
What is Clifford’s (and Stair’s) thesis about what we, intellectually, ought to believe or when we are within our “logical rights” in believing something? Are they correct? Why or why not?
What is the basic, traditional monotheistic conception of God?
God and Goodness: what is it for a being or person to be (morally) good? Explain the two options Rachels (and Plato) present. Which option is preferable when thinking about God? Why?
God's Omnipotence: what is it for a being to be omnipotent? Arguably there are things an omnipotent being cannot do: what are these things? Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it? Explain Mavrodes response to the question. Is he right? Why or why not?
Related to omnipotence and other divine attributes:

What is it for something to be possible, a claim that’s possibly true or a possibly existing being? Explain the different sense of possibility and impossibility: logically possible, physically possible, etc.
What is it for something to be necessary, a necessary truth or necessary existence? Explain the different sense of possibility and impossibility: logically possible, physically possible, etc.

Foreknowledge and free will: Present an argument for the view that God’s foreknowledge (what is this?) and human free will are incompatible (explain what it is for two things to be incompatible). Is this argument sound? Explain at least two responses for why it is not sound. Evaluate those responses.
Can God change? Present some of the arguments given to think that God cannot change. Evaluate those arguments. (Hasker)
Minas argues that God could not forgive. What are here arguments? Is she correct?
Rachels argues that being a moral agent and someone who worships God are incompatible. What are his reasons? Is he correct? Explain.
Cosmological arguments: what are Aquinas’s Five Ways of proving God’s existence? Explain the possible objections to, at least, the arguments from motion and efficient cause. These were raised by Hick.
Cosmological arguments: Taylor suggests the Principle of Sufficient Reason. What is this principle? What is his argument from the Principle of Sufficient Reason to the conclusion that God exists? Is his argument sound?
Design / teleological arguments: Present a version of the argument from design either as an argument from analogy or as an inference to the best explanation. Present these arguments’ possible weaknesses or prominent reasons to doubt that these arguments provide adequate support for their conclusions.

2008-10-07T14:36:00.001-07:00

Hi,
It seems to me like this version of Hume is a killer. Try to get what you can out of it, to find a comprehensible section or so. But make sure you read pp. 329-331 on teleological arguments.

A far more accessible version of Hume's text is available here; this version is actually a pleasure to read: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com

Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Complete text ( PDF, 371kb)

Parts 1-3 ( PDF, 118kb)
Parts 4-8 ( PDF, 110kb)
Parts 9-end ( PDF, 158kb)

Exam, this week, next week

2008-10-06T14:14:00.001-07:00

Hi,
As mentioned in class, we should have an exam. And it should be Friday Oct 17 in class.
I will post a study guide with questions later tonight, but the topics are everything we have covered which includes basic concepts of arguments, questions and puzzles about the concept of God and divine attributes, and the 3 main arguments for God's existence.

For Wednesday we discuss Hume's objections to the design argument. The reading is long and challenging! OPS writing assignment due.

For Friday October 10, 10-10:50am we will meet at Hope Hall -- between Tech Towers -- Room 209 for a guest lecture from Dr. Larry Blumer. He will discuss the theory of evolution. BE THERE AND BE THERE ON TIME!

For next Monday and Wednesday we will discuss the versions of the ontological argument. Readings in Cahn. More details soon.

Monday, Wednesday

2008-10-05T07:27:00.000-07:00

For Monday, Paley on the design / teleological argument in Cahn. OPS due.

For Wednesday, Hume on the design argument / teleological in Cahn. Note: this selection is long and a bit more challenging. Need to read ahead and re-read!

For Friday, we should have a guest speaker from the biology department who will give an overview of evolutionary theory. Here is some of what he's been asked to address:

Briefly, what's a theory? What's a scientific theory?
What data, phenomena or observations does the (or a) theory of evolution attempt to explain?
What are competing theories or hypotheses that attempt to explain this data or phenomena?
What's the (or a) evolutionary theory? How does it explain?
Is there anything that evolutionary theory has a difficult time explaining?
Should we accept evolutionary theory? Why is it better than rivals? How does one decide these things?
Any comments on confusions and misunderstandings behind the common claim, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" would be appreciated.

2008-10-03T08:16:00.001-07:00

Cosmological Argument

First published Tue Jul 13, 2004; substantive revision Thu Sep 11, 2008

The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from certain alleged facts about the world (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God. Among these initial facts are that the world came into being, that the world is contingent in that it could have been other than it is, or that certain beings or events in the world are causally dependent or contingent. From these facts philosophers infer either deductively or inductively that a first cause, a necessary being, an unmoved mover, or a personal being (God) exists. The cosmological argument is part of classical natural theology, whose goal has been to provide some evidence for the claim that God exists.

On the one hand, the argument arises from human curiosity as to why there is something rather than nothing. It invokes a concern for some complete, ultimate, or best explanation of what exists contingently. On the other hand, it raises intrinsically important philosophical questions about contingency and necessity, causation and explanation, part/whole relationships (mereology), infinity, sets, and the nature and origin of the universe. In what follows we will first sketch out a very brief history of the argument, note the two fundamental types of deductive cosmological arguments, and then provide a careful analysis of each, first the argument from contingency, then the argument from the impossibility of an infinite temporal regress of causes. In the end we will consider an inductive version of the cosmological argument.

Aquinas's 5 Ways

2008-10-02T08:13:00.000-07:00

St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.

[The arguments can be simplified but just using the bolded premises; other premises are often sub-arguments for some of these premises]

The First Way: Argument from Motion

Some things are in motion.
Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
Therefore nothing can move itself.
Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
Nothing exists prior to itself.
Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
Assume (for the sake of argument) that every being is a contingent being.
For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.[If a being exists contingently, then it does not exist necessarily]
Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
Most natural things lack knowledge.
But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Summary of objections:

Philosophy and Religion Society Meeting

2008-09-29T19:43:00.001-07:00

> From: pr.society@hotmail.com
> Subject: First Philosophy and Religion Society Meeting
> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:19:08 -0400
>
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> I hope all is well. This email is being sent to notify you all of the first official meeting of the Philosophy and Religion Society for the 2008-09 academic school year. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 1, 2008. Our start time will be 7pm and we will be located in Sale Hall (room 109). We ask that you please be prompt, so that we can conclude on time. The meeting should be quite brief. No more than one hour. (we were finished after 45 minutes last meeting). We do desire to be respectful of your time.
>
>
>
> During this meeting, we plan to go through brief introductions of new members, but also propose the mission and vision of the society for this year. Another pressing issue that we must discuss is the upcoming Vanderbilt Conference. The conference is in November so we need to get all of the information on the table as soon as possible.
>
>
>
> We will probably also begin to discuss our first social functions. I hope to see you all at the meeting on next Wednesday. And I hope that we are all looking forward to a new, exciting, and productive year.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Taurean Webb
>
> President
>

For Friday, Monday, and Wed.

2008-09-24T08:20:00.000-07:00

For Friday:

So far we have mostly been doing "philosophical theology," i.e., thinking about the concept of God, thinking about what God is like if He exists, thinking about the nature of various attributes of God, thinking about their relationships, and so forth.

Our next task is to think about whether God exists or not, whether there is an existing being that fits the description of God. So, is there an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing being or not?

Here we turn to the arguments for God's existence and against, arguments for the conclusion God exists and the conclusion God does not exist. Monday we will look at Aquinas's arguments, his famous "5 Ways."

Friday, however, I want us to develop an informal list of the various arguments and reasons that you think motivate most people's belief or disbelieve in God's existence (as well as what motivates agnosticism, i.e., suspending judgment). So here are the questions:

For people who believe that God exists, what reasons do, or would, they give to support their belief? A different question (how so?) is, What might cause people to believe in God?
For people who believe that God does not exist, what reasons do, or would, they give to support their belief? A different question (how so?) is, What might cause people to believe there is not God?
For people who have considered the question but neither believe nor disbelieve that God exists, what reasons do, or would, they give to support their belief? A different question (how so?) is, What might cause people to be agnostics?

We want to make lists of as many reasons as we can possibly think of. Try to be exhaustive. Anything you have heard or can imagine hearing is worth writing down.

The next question is whether which, if any, of these reasons are good reasons or not.

I asked JC to moderate and record.

For Monday:

Aquinas's 5 Ways; OPS due

For Wed:

Taylor and Hick on the Cosmological Argument; OPS due

Commentary on Rachels

2008-09-24T06:55:00.001-07:00

1 TI: WORSHIP AND MORAL AUTONOMY.
AU: LOMBARDI,-JOSEPH-L
SO: Religious-Studies. JE 88; 24: 101-119
IS: 0034-4125
AB: JAMES RACHELS PRESENTED AN ARGUMENT FOR THE NECESSARY NONEXISTENCE OF GOD WHICH WAS CRITICIZED BY PHILIP QUINN AND ROBERT OAKES. REASONS ARE OFFERED FOR THINKING THAT QUINN'S RECONSTRUCTION MISREPRESENTS RACHELS'S VIEWS. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE ATTEMPTS OF QUINN AND OAKES TO EXCLUDE POSSIBLE INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN DIVINE OBEDIENCE AND MORAL AUTONOMY ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. FINALLY, A DIFFERENT REASON IS GIVEN FOR BELIEVING THAT RACHELS'S ARGUMENT IS UNSOUND. A BRIEF POSTSCRIPT DISCUSSES QUINN'S RECENT SUGGESTION THAT THE OBLIGATION ASSOCIATED WITH WORSHIP IS NOT A MORAL OBLIGATION BUT A "RELIGIOUS" ONE.
DE: AUTONOMY-; GOD-; RELIGION-; WORSHIP-
PS: QUINN,-P; RACHELS,-J
LA: ENGLISH
DT: Journal-Article
AN: 1163069
in The Philosopher's Index 1940-2007/06.

2 TI: KANTIAN AUTONOMY AND DIVINE COMMANDS.
AU: MURPHY,-JEFFRIE-G
SO: Faith-and-Philosophy. JL 87; 4: 276-281
IS: 0739-7046
AB: JAMES RACHELS HAS ARGUED THAT A MORALLY AUTONOMOUS PERSON (IN KANT'S SENSE) COULD NOT CONSISTENTLY ACCEPT THE AUTHORITY OF DIVINE COMMANDS. AGAINST RACHELS, THIS ESSAY ARGUES (A) THAT THE KANTIAN CONCEPT OF MORAL AUTONOMY IS TO BE ANALYZED IN TERMS OF AN AGENT'S RESPONSIVENESS TO THE BEST AVAILABLE MORAL REASONS AND (B) THAT IT IS SIMPLY QUESTION-BEGGING AGAINST DIVINE COMMAND THEORY TO ASSUME THAT SUCH COMMANDS COULD NOT COUNT AS THE BEST MORAL REASONS AVAILABLE TO AN AGENT.
DE: AUTONOMY-; COMMAND-; DIVINE-; ETHICS-; GOD-
PS: KANT,-IMMANUEL
LA: ENGLISH
DT: Journal-Article
AN: 1151390
in The Philosopher's Index 1940-2007/06.

3 TI: RELIGIOUS OBEDIENCE AND MORAL AUTONOMY.
AU: QUINN,-PHILIP-L
SO: Religious-Studies. S 75; 11: 265-281
IS: 0034-4125
AB: THE PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER IS TO EXPLORE THE RELATIONS BETWEEN MORAL AUTONOMY AND RELIGIOUS OBEDIENCE. AN ARGUMENT CONSTRUCTED BY JAMES RACHELS, WHICH PURPORTS TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE INCOMPATIBLE, IS PROVED TO BE UNSOUND. IT IS ARGUED THAT THERE ARE EPISTEMIC SITUATIONS IN WHICH IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT ONE HAD RECEIVED A DIVINE COMMAND, AND THE KANTIAN RESPONSE TO THE STORY OF ABRAHAM AND ISAAC IS CRITICIZED. TECHNICAL NOTIONS OF AUTONOMY AND OBEDIENCE, ACCORDING TO WHICH THEY ARE INCOMPATIBLE PROVIDED MORALITY DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE DIVINE WILL, ARE DEFINED, BUT IT IS SUGGESTED THAT AUTONOMY, SO DEFINED, IS NOT A SENSIBLE MORAL IDEAL.
DE: AUTONOMY-; GOD-; RELIGION-; WORSHIP-
PS: RACHELS,-J
LA: ENGLISH
DT: Journal-Article
AN: 1049540
in The Philosopher's Index 1940-2007/06.

4 TI: REPLY TO PROFESSOR RACHELS.
AU: OAKES,-ROBERT-A
SO: Religious-Studies. JE 72; 8: 165-167
IS: 0034-4125
AB: THIS PAPER CONSTITUTES A RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR JAMES RACHELS' "GOD AND HUMAN ATTITUDES" WHICH APPEARED IN THE DECEMBER 1971 ISSUE OF "RELIGIOUS STUDIES", PP. 325-337. I ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT RACHELS' PUTATIVE ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF OF GOD FAILS INSOFAR AS THERE IS NO LOGICAL INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE AXIOLOGICAL PERFECTION OF GOD AND HUMAN MORAL AGENCY.
DE: EXISTENCE-; GOD-; RELIGION-
PS: RACHELS,-J
LA: ENGLISH
DT: Journal-Article
AN: 1037781
in The Philosopher's Index 1940-2007/06.

5 TI: GOD AND HUMAN ATTITUDES.
AU: RACHELS,-JAMES
SO: Religious-Studies.; 7: 325-338
IS: 0034-4125
DE: AUTONOMY-; GOD-; RELIGION-; WORSHIP-
LA: ENGLISH
DT: Journal-Article
AN: 1077625
in The Philosopher's Index 1940-2007/06.

For Wednesday

2008-09-22T08:20:00.000-07:00

8. God and the Concept of Worship , James Rachels , p. 38 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

Some additional articles on God & Forgiveness, with some abstracts

2008-09-22T08:17:00.000-07:00

TI:	The Nature of God's Love and Forgiveness
		AU:	Drabkin,-Douglas
		SO:	Religious-Studies. Je 93; 29(2): 231-238
		IS:	0034-4125
		AB:	1) I suggest that God, a being good in the best possible combination of ways, loves us by promoting our true good -- the moral life -- while being disposed to feel joy when we are good, and sorrow when we are evil. I defend this view against Creel, who argues that God cannot suffer, since suffering is neither intrinsically good nor good in virtue of its consequences. 2) I argue, against Minas, that God will forgive us, by feeling joy on our account and ceasing to suffer, provided we repent and commit to becoming good. 3) I argue that emotional change is compatible with omniscience.
		DE:	CHRISTIANITY-; FORGIVENESS-; GOD-; LOVE-; RELIGION-
		LA:	English

TI:	God and Forgiveness
		AU:	Londey,-David
		SO:	Sophia-. 1992; 31(1-2): 101-109
		IS:	0038-1527
		DE:	EVIL-; FORGIVENESS-; GOD-; RELIGION-
		PS:	BRIEN,-A
		LA:	English
		DT:	Journal-Article
		AN:	1236736

7	TI:	CAN GOD FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES?
	AU:	BRIEN,-ANDREW
	SO:	Sophia-. JL 89; 28: 35-42
	IS:	0038-1527
	AB:	IN HIS PAPER "CAN GOD FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES?" ("SOPHIA", 25, JULY 1986, 4-10), DAVID LONDEY ARGUES THAT IT IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN IDEAL MORAL AGENT (IMA) TO FORGIVE AND ACT RIGHTLY. IN MY PAPER I ARGUE THAT HIS ARGUMENT FAILS FOR AT LEAST TWO REASONS. FIRST, IT IS INVALID DUE TO EQUIVOCATION BETWEEN TYPES OF 'OUGHT' IN HIS ARGUMENT. SECOND, EVEN IF THE ARGUMENT WERE VALID, IT CANNOT GUARANTEE THE TRUTH OF THE CONCLUSION BECAUSE IT RESTS UPON LONDEY'S ACCOUNT OF FORGIVENESS, WHICH IS, ITSELF, FALSE. THE PAPER HAS THREE SECTIONS. IN THE FIRST SECTION I SET OUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'OUGHTS'. IN THE SECOND SECTION I CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THE ARGUMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THIS. IN THE THIRD SECTION I CONSIDER LONDEY'S ACCOUNT OF FORGIVENESS.
	DE:	AGENCY-; FORGIVENESS-; GOD-; MORALITY-; RELIGION-

9	TI:	CAN GOD FORGIVE?
		AU:	PATON,-MARGARET
		SO:	Modern-Theology. AP 88; 4: 225-233
		IS:	0266-7177
		DE:	DIVINE-; FORGIVENESS-; GOD-; RELIGION-
		LA:	ENGLISH
		DT:	Journal-Article
		AN:	1156918

TI:	CAN GOD FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES?
		AU:	LONDEY,-DAVID
		SO:	Sophia-. JL 86; 25: 4-10
		IS:	0038-1527
		AB:	A SHORT ANALYSIS IS GIVEN OF THE ACT OF FORGIVING, WHICH IS DISTINGUISHED FROM SHOWING MERCY. IT IS SHOWN THAT FORGIVING INVOLVES TOTAL REMISSION OF DESERVED PENALTIES, INCLUDING MORAL CENSURE. AN ARGUMENT IN SENECA ("DE CLEMENTIA", II,7) REJECTS FORGIVING AS WRONG BECAUSE THE FORGIVER OMITS WHAT HE OUGHT TO DO. ALTHOUGH THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT HOLD FOR ORDINARY MORAL AGENTS, IT DOES HOLD FOR PERFECT MORAL AGENTS--WHENCE, A MORALLY PERFECT GOD CANNOT FORGIVE WRONGDOERS.
		DE:	FORGIVENESS-; GOD-; MERCY-; RELIGION-

I:	FORGIVENESS.
		AU:	HUGHES,-MARTIN
		SO:	Analysis-. MR 75; 35: 113-117
		IS:	0003-2638
		DE:	FORGIVENESS-; GOD-; RELIGION-
		PS:	GINGELL,-J
		LA:	ENGLISH
		DT:	Journal-Article
		AN:	1046965

13	TI:	GOD AND FORGIVENESS.
	AU:	MINAS,-ANNE-C
	SO:	Philosophical-Quarterly. AP 75; 25: 138-150
	IS:	0031-8094
	AB:	I TRY TO SHOW HOW IT IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO FORGIVE ANYONE, BECAUSE OF INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE CONCEPTS OF 'DIVINITY' AND 'FORGIVENESS'. I MAKE SOME FAIRLY STANDARD ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT 'DIVINITY' AND THEN FIND EIGHT OR NINE TYPES OF 'FORGIVENESS'. WITH EACH TYPE I TRY TO SHOW THAT IT'S NOT AN ACTION A DIVINE BEING CAN PERFORM.
	DE:	FORGIVENESS-; GOD-; PUNISHMENT-; RELIGION-; RESENTMENT-
	PS:	BUTLER

TI:	FORGIVENESS AND POWER.
		AU:	GINGELL,-JOHN
		SO:	Analysis-. JE 74; 34: 180-183
		IS:	0003-2638
		DE:	FORGIVENESS-; GOD-; POWER-; RELIGION-
		LA:	ENGLISH
		DT:	Journal-Article
		AN:	1043812

God and Free Will

2008-09-22T06:46:00.000-07:00

Foreknowledge and Free Will

Suppose it were known, by someone else, what you are going to choose to do tomorrow. Wouldn't that entail that tomorrow you must do what it was known in advance that you would do? In spite of your deliberating and planning, in the end, all is futile: you must choose exactly as it was earlier known that you would. The supposed exercise of your free will is ultimately an illusion. Historically, the tension between foreknowledge and the exercise of free will was addressed in a religious context. According to orthodox views in the West, God was claimed to be omniscient (and hence in possession of perfect foreknowledge) and yet God was supposed to have given humankind free will. Attempts to solve the apparent contradiction often involved attributing to God special properties, for example, being "outside" of time. However, the trouble with such solutions is that they are generally unsatisfactory on their own terms. Even more serious is the fact that they leave untouched the problem posed not by God's foreknowledge but that of any human being. Do human beings have foreknowledge? Certainly, of at least some events and behaviors. Thus we have a secular counterpart of the original problem. A human being's foreknowledge, exactly as would God's, of another's choices would seem to preclude the exercise of human free will. Various ways of trying to solve the problem – for example, by putting constraints on the truth-conditions for statements, or by "tightening" the conditions necessary for knowledge – are examined and shown not to work. Ultimately the alleged incompatibility of foreknowledge and free will is shown to rest on a subtle logical error. When the error, a modal fallacy, is recognized, and remedied, the problem evaporates.

Table of Contents (Clicking on the links below will take you to that part of this article)

1. Introduction: The Problem of Foreknowledge and Free Will

2. Three Kinds of Determinism

3. The Relationship Between Epistemic and Logical Determinism

4. Attacking the Premises of Deterministic Arguments

4a. Can a Future Contingent be true prior to the event it refers to?

4b. Can a Future Contingent be known prior to the event it refers to?

5. Possibility, Necessity, and Contingency

6. The Modal Fallacy

6a. The Modal Fallacy in Logical Determinism

6b. The Modal Fallacy in Epistemic Determinism

7. Residual concerns – Changing the past; Changing the future

8. Concluding Remarks

Further Reading

Notes

2008-09-21T04:36:00.000-07:00

For Monday:

7. God and Forgiveness, Anne Minas, p. 25 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion
8. God and the Concept of Worship , James Rachels , p. 38 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

OPS Writing assignments due on both.

Philosophy Club

2008-09-17T08:25:00.000-07:00

From: pr.society@hotmail.com

Greetings:

I thank all of you who have responded to requests concerning participation in Morehouse College’s Philosophy and Religion Society for the 2008-09 academic school year. Your interest is very much appreciated.

Although it is on somewhat short notice, our first meeting/ interest meeting will be held on tomorrow, Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 5pm in Sale Hall. I apologize for the short notice, but we were running into some scheduling conflicts.

I would very much like for all of you to attend. We will be introducing the organization, its purpose, officers and general plans for the upcoming academic school year. We plan to hold meetings at least twice a month, but tomorrow’s meeting is important because it will lay foundational work concerning who concretely desires to participate in the organization and functions. We do not plan to hold you long.

Additionally, please invite all of your friends/ colleagues that are either philosophy/ religion majors or minors AND all those who have a general interest in philosophical or religious studies discourse (in its academic function). We will open the society up to ALL MAJORS.

As for right now, that is all. I wish you all well for the rest of the day and I hope to see you Wednesday afternoon at 5.

Best,

Taurean J Webb
President, Philosophy and Religion Society

2008-09-15T11:04:00.000-07:00

Today we discussed the concepts of a logical implication, logical consequence and/or a logical entailment.

For Wednesday, we will discuss various responses to the problem of divine foreknowledge and human free will. OPS writing assignments due on all of them, if you haven't turned them in yet:

3. God's Foreknowledge and Free Will , Augustine , p. 11 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

4. God's Omniscience and Contingent Events , Levi Gersonides , p. 13 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion
5. Does God Know the Future? , Steven M. Cahn , p. 16 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

For Friday; OPS writing assignments due then:

6. Does God Change? , William Hacker , p. 20 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

8. God and the Concept of Worship , James Rachels , p. 38 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

2008-09-13T06:40:00.000-07:00

FYI here's an overview of the topic discussed yesterday:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/divine-c.htm
See especially
3. A Persistent Problem for Divine Command Theory: The Euthyphro Dilemma

relationship between God and ethics. In this dialogue, written by Plato (1981), who was a student of Socrates, Euthyphro and Socrates encounter each other in the king’s court. Charges have been brought against Socrates by Miletus, who claims that Socrates is guilty of corrupting the youth of Athens by leading them away from belief in the proper gods. In the course of their conversation, Socrates is surprised to discover that Euthyphro is prosecuting his own father for the murder of a servant. Euthyphro’s family is upset with him because of this, and they believe that what he is doing—prosecuting his own father—is impious. Euthyphro maintains that his family fails to understand the divine attitude to his action. This then sets the stage for a discussion of the nature of piety between Socrates and Euthyphro. In this discussion, Socrates asks Euthyphro the now philosophically famous question that he and any divine command theorist must consider: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” (p. 14).

For our purposes, it will be useful to rephrase Socrates’ question. Socrates can be understood as asking “Does God command this particular action because it is morally right, or is it morally right because God commands it?” It is in answering this question that the divine command theorist encounters a difficulty. A defender of Divine Command Theory might respond that an action is morally right because God commands it. However, the implication of this response is that if God commanded that we inflict suffering on others for fun, then doing so would be morally right. We would be obligated to do so, because God commanded it. This is because, on Divine Command Theory, the reason that inflicting such suffering is wrong is that God commands us not to do it. However, if God commanded us to inflict such suffering, doing so would become the morally right thing to do. The problem for this response to Socrates’ question, then, is that God’s commands and therefore the foundations of morality become arbitrary, which then allows for morally reprehensible actions to become morally obligatory.

Most advocates of Divine Command Theory do not want to be stuck with the implication that cruelty could possibly be morally right, nor do they want to accept the implication that the foundations of morality are arbitrary. So, a divine command theorist might avoid this problem of arbitrariness by opting for a different answer to Socrates’ question, and say that for any particular action that God commands, He commands it because it is morally right. By taking this route, the divine command theorist avoids having to accept that inflicting suffering on others for fun could be a morally right action. More generally, she avoids the arbitrariness that plagues any Divine Command Theory which includes the claim that an action is right solely because God commands it. However, two new problems now arise. If God commands a particular action because it is morally right, then ethics no longer depends on God in the way that Divine Command Theorists maintain. God is no longer the author of ethics, but rather a mere recognizer of right and wrong. As such, God no longer serves as the foundation of ethics. Moreover, it now seems that God has become subject to an external moral law, and is no longer sovereign. John Arthur (2005) puts the point this way: “If God approves kindness because it is a virtue and hates the Nazis because they were evil, then it seems that God discovers morality rather than inventing it” (20, emphasis added). God is no longer sovereign over the entire universe, but rather is subject to a moral law external to himself. The notion that God is subject to an external moral law is also a problem for theists who hold that in the great chain of being, God is at the top. Here, there is a moral law external to and higher than God, and this is a consequence that many divine command theorists would want to reject. Hence, the advocate of a Divine Command Theory of ethics faces a dilemma: morality either rests on arbitrary foundations, or God is not the source of ethics and is subject to an external moral law, both of which allegedly compromise his supreme moral and metaphysical status.

For Monday and Wednesday

2008-09-12T08:43:00.000-07:00

For Monday and Wednesday, OPS writing assignments due Monday on all of them:

3. God's Foreknowledge and Free Will , Augustine , p. 11 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

4. God's Omniscience and Contingent Events , Levi Gersonides , p. 13 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion
5. Does God Know the Future? , Steven M. Cahn , p. 16 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

For Friday; OPS writing assignments due then:

6. Does God Change? , William Hacker , p. 20 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

8. God and the Concept of Worship , James Rachels , p. 38 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

Online Readings

2008-09-10T13:13:00.000-07:00

The first set of readings from Cahn are available here for people who can't / don't get the book yet:

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/cahn-first-readings.pdf

2008-09-08T11:20:00.000-07:00

For Wed.:

1. God and Goodness , James Rachels, p. 5, in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

2. God's Omnipotence , George Mavrodes , p. 8 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

Here are some notes that discuss in greater detail what we discussed today regarding Clifford and the intellectual/epistemic and moral questions of what you ought to believe:

4. The Ethics of Belief (September 27- Oct. 6, 2006)

5. Evidentialism (October 6-13, 2006)

Update

2008-09-07T13:54:00.000-07:00

I thought I would send out an email noting what has been assigned for reading thus far.
While I said that we would discuss Clifford, Rachels and Mavrodes Monday, I think we will likely only talk about Clifford and Rachels, leaving Mavrodes for Wed. Friday we will begin these readings:

3. God's Foreknowledge and Free Will , Augustine , p. 11 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

4. God's Omniscience and Contingent Events , Levi Gersonides , p. 13 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

5. Does God Know the Future? , Steven M. Cahn , p. 16 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

Here is what's been assigned:

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

37. The Ethics of Belief , W. K. Clifford , p. 195 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

Preface , viii in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion
Introduction, 1 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion
ONLINE ARTICLE or HANDOUT: William Lane Craig, "God Is Not Dead Yet: How current philosophers argue for his existence," Christianity Today, July 2008. At http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html
Introduction. p. 327 in Cahn’s appendix book God, Reason, and Religion in his Exploring Philosophy of Religion: An Introductory Anthology

· Proving God's Existence? P. 328 in Cahn’s appendix book God, Reason, and Religion in his Exploring Philosophy of Religion: An Introductory Anthology

· Vaughn:

o Ch. 1, How to Read Philosophy;

o Ch. 2, How to Read an Argument;

o Ch. 5, Avoiding Fallacious Reasoning

o Basic Logic handout: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/arguments.pdf

Part I: The Concept of God: If God exists, then what is God like?

1. God and Goodness , James Rachels, p. 5, in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

2. God's Omnipotence , George Mavrodes , p. 8 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

Friday and Monday

2008-09-03T08:48:00.000-07:00

For Friday:

37. The Ethics of Belief , W. K. Clifford , p. 195 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

· Vaughn:

o Ch. 1, How to Read Philosophy;

o Ch. 2, How to Read an Argument;

o Ch. 5, Avoiding Fallacious Reasoning

o Basic Logic handout: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/arguments.pdf

For Monday, we will start thinking about some questions about the traditional concept of God. Here is the writing assignment about the readings:

“OPS” (Outline, Paraphrase, &/or Summarize the Argument) 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. A (tentative) schedule of readings is below and will be announced in class. To encourage you do the readings well and so be prepared for class discussion, you will be required to write 1-3 page outlines, paraphrases &/or summaries of the arguments of nearly all of the readings or selections of them. Vaughn’s Writing Philosophy, Ch. 1 provides instruction on how to do this. What most important for these assignments is that you (a) identify the author’s main conclusions, and (b) explain the reasons he or she gives in favor of these conclusions and (c) explain whether these reasons are a valid and sound argument for that conclusion or not. Merely copying a writing’s Introduction will result in a zero for the assignment, as will any other kind of plagiarism.

Part I: The Concept of God: If God exists, then what is God like?

1. God and Goodness , James Rachels, p. 5, in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

2. God's Omnipotence , George Mavrodes , p. 8 in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

New Location

2008-08-28T20:24:00.000-07:00

This class is now meeting in the Leadership Building, Rm. 450, at least for now!

Philosophy 410: Philosophy of Religion

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

Paper

Paper on Arguments from Evil

Test Monday

Design Arguments for the Existence of God

Table of Contents

Wed

Friday and Beyond

For Wed. and Beyond

Friday

Wednesday

Reading and writing assignment for Monday

PreTest

Philosophy 410, Philosophy of Religion, Spring 2011

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]

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

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

Final Exam Paper

Study Guide

ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

The argument is given below in it's original form (translated by Jonathan Barnes).

From the Proslogium

Contents

Monday & Wed.

Logic Handout

ATL Undergraduate Philosophy Conference

Spring 2010 Syllabus

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]

4. Optional, but not ordered by bookstore: Is God a White Racist? A Preamble to Black Theology, 2nd ed., by William R. Jones (Beacon 1997).

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

African American Philosophy of Religion Resources

Spring 2009

A Companion to Applied Ethics

Announcement

Reviews

Description

TopTable of Contents

A Companion to Applied Ethics

Posting Pinal Paper

Final Exam

Remaining Schedule

Final Exam Paper

Notes on Pinn Preface and Intro

Arguments against theism from evil / badness

Study Guide

Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Exam, this week, next week

Monday, Wednesday

Cosmological Argument

Aquinas's 5 Ways

Philosophy and Religion Society Meeting

For Friday, Monday, and Wed.

Commentary on Rachels

For Wednesday

Some additional articles on God & Forgiveness, with some abstracts

God and Free Will

Philosophy Club

For Monday and Wednesday

Online Readings

1. God and Goodness , James Rachels, p. 5, in Cahn’s Exploring Philosophy of Religion

Update

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

· Proving God's Existence? P. 328 in Cahn’s appendix book God, Reason, and Religion in his Exploring Philosophy of Religion: An Introductory Anthology

· Vaughn:

o Ch. 1, How to Read Philosophy;

4. Optional, but not ordered by bookstore: Is God a White Racist? A Preamble to Black Theology, 2^nd ed., by William R. Jones (Beacon 1997).