For Friday, we will finish discussion of Stairs Ch 1 on the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omni-benevolence.

For Monday,

For next Monday, Oct.1, a detailed summary OR OUTLINE of the next two chapters of Vaughn, 4 and 5 are due in class and via Turnitin. If you did not do a detailed summary OR OUTLINE  of Chapter 3, I encourage you to revisit that.

Also, more importantly, another short paper:

You have written a paper on Harris where you present three of his main claims and some of the reasons he gives in his favor.

Now, your task is to do some online research and

• find discussions of Harris (check Google, Google scholar and other sources);
• find discussion of at least one of the claims that you discuss in your paper;
• find critical discussion of at least one of these claims, that is, arguments that Harris's claim is false and/or that Harris's argument(s) for that claim are unsound (see Vaughn for what that term means) or otherwise bad arguments.This critical discussion must include reasons given in favor of this objection. So, you are looking for a developed, well-reasoned, defended objection to Harris: not a mere assertion. 

Then you should write up a paper where you state Harris's claim or argument and then explain whatever objection to that claim or argument that you find.

You do not yet have to explain whether this objection is a good one or not.

Your writing should be clear, well organized, and simple. It should be easy to follow.  It should conform to all the guidance from Vaughn.

Hi,
As discussed in class today, the revision on the "three claims by Harris" paper is due Wednesday. Please see the blog for guidance on how to improve your paper, as well as the Vaughn book.

Wednesday we will finish up chapter 1 of the Stairs book.

For Friday, please find criticisms of Harris online that address some of the claim(s) you discuss in your paper. Bring it to class.

For next Monday, Oct.1, a detailed summary of the next two chapters of Vaughn,  4 and 5 are due in class and via Turnitin.

Thanks,
NN

Here is a reminder of this extra credit assignment that as on the syllabus; click on the link to see the document (with pictures): 

EXTRA CREDIT ASSIGNMENTS. There likely will be many extra credit opportunities, including this assignment related to finding your “calling” through your career(s): 

https://docs.google.com/open?id=1TKXEcQS1D5AJ_PwKf8T3UWgHdXtOkNcNTrSmlrdQ_U2vP7FXdpXwmTLAHDW0 

“Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it.

Because what the world needs is people who have come alive.” ― Howard Thurman

Hi, 

Some philosophers of religion stopped by yesterday to discuss their papers. Here are some quick suggestions:

Always put your email address on your written work. That way I can more easily contact you with feedback. 

You were asked to find three *main claims* that Harris makes and supports in his book. Many students did not really do that: either they mentioned various *issues or topics* that Harris discusses -- but did not mention the claims he makes about those issues or topics (e.g., e.g., "About this topic his main claim is that ______) or they presented various minor claims Harris makes. Again, you want to find three main claims and explain them clearly, and briefly summarize the reasons he gives in favor of these themes. And you want to present these in a way that someone who has not read the book would understand them.

I encourage you to try to write SIMPLY: write in short sentences -- break up any long sentences -- and so not use any uncommon, fancy words unless  no ordinary words will do the job. Again, I encourage you to break up any long sentences into shorter ones: I GUARANTEE this will improve your writing: this is what journalists do, to make their writings more readable. 

Each paragraph should be focused on one topic: you should be able to say, "This paragraph is about this: ____." 

Don't use the word 'feel', e.g., "Harris feels that ____." Use believes, thinks, or argues, since rarely will anyone be talking about their feelings or emotions in a philosophy paper. 

Do not write "Well" as in, "Well, this argument is ___." No "wells." 

Please carefully read the Vaughn book, since there is much in it that will help improve your writing. And there is an outlining/summarizing summary on  the first three chapters due Monday. 

OK, these are a few quick thoughts!

Thanks, NN

Some new assignments:

This Monday (9/17), your "intellectual notes" on Harris's book are due.

Wednesday we will discuss  chapter 1 of A Thinker's Guide to Philosophy of Religion on Concepts of God. Please read that chapter and the Introduction.

For Friday (9/21), please write a short paper that summarizes three of the main claims that Harris makes in his book, as well as the reasons he gives in favor of those claims. Your paper should have an introduction that tells the reader what you will do in the paper. Your purpose here it to accurately state and explain some of Harris's views and his arguments in favor of those views. There should be no evaluation or criticisms of his views or arguments in this paper; that will be the next step.

I would like 3 students to volunteer to get me their papers by 9 AM that day so I can get them photocopied for us to read, discuss and make suggestions for improvement in class that day.

For the next Monday (9/24), please read Vaughn Chapters. 1 -3 (1-2 have already been assigned) and write a detailed summary of the chapters. Submit these via Turnitin.com and in hardcopy.

As has been mentioned in class, your "intellectual notes" on the entire Harris book are due this Monday (9/17) in class, in hard copy and submitted via Turnitin.com, as explained on the syllabus.

"Intellectual notes" focus only on intellectual concerns, which concern the truth and falsity of what the claims made and the arguments for and against various claims. This was explained on the notes handed out in class. Recall these words at the top:

These notes are guided by these intellectual concerns:

·         Understanding what the author means when he says something that is not clear.

·         Asking whether specific claims the author makes are true or false and why.

·         Asking what arguments (i.e., reasons) are or could be given in favor of a claim (or conclusion) and whether these arguments are sound or not.

Here are responses that will be avoided entirely because they are irrelevant to intellectual concerns:

·         Speculations on the author’s emotions: irrelevant to the quality of the arguments, truth or falsity of claims made, etc.

·         Speculations on the author’s motives: irrelevant to the quality of the arguments, truth or falsity of claims made, etc.

·         Reports on whether we like or dislike what the author says, and how we “feel” about the writing, unless this relates to the intellectual quality of the arguments.

“PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY = TRY TO READ AND INTERPRET IN A WAY THAT MAKES THE AUTHOR MAKE THE MOST SENSE. DON’T QUICKLY DISMISS PEOPLE’S CLAIMS IF THEY CAN BE “FIXED” A LITTLE BIT TO MAKE MORE SENSE.

“Begging the question”

·         assuming a (controversial) claim without given reasons for it: assuming the claim that is being debated;

·         responding to someone’s reasoning, i.e., given premises, in favor of some conclusion, “But that conclusion is not true,” but failing to give any reasons why anyone should think that or trying to show how the person’s reasons were not good reasons.

This is a way to fail in engaging a discussion by failing to give reasons and responding to reasons.