FINAL EXAM, PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION (1-3 PM)

For this exam, you must fully explain and evaluate:

1. A problem of evil, or an argument from evil.
2. Either a cosmological argument or a teleological or design argument, and
3. Either an argument from religious experience or Pacal’s wager.

Your task is to demonstrate that you understand these arguments;

·         that you know what their conclusions are,

·         that you know what their premises are, i.e., the reasons given in favor of the conclusions,

·         that you are able to explain the reasoning,

·         that you are able to explain why someone might accept the premises, i.e., the reasons someone might give in their favor,

·         that you are able to explain at least two objections to the soundness of the argument, i.e., reasons to think that at least one premise of the argument is false and/or unreasonable to believe. (An objection relates only to the intellectual status of the argument or reasoning: recall the ‘intellectual notes’ about Harris).

·         that you are able to give an overall evaluation of the argument, in terms of whether it is sound and so accepting the conclusion on the basis of it is intellectually responsible.

There are multiple versions of each argument. You should always pick the strongest version to present and evaluate, not a “straw man” version of the argument. You may wish to explain why you chose the version of the argument that you did, since that shows deeper understanding of the issues.

Your discussion should be well organized and clear. It could be such that someone could read it and would learn from it, and it would be clear to the reader that YOU know your stuff about these arguments.

You have plenty of time, so organize and clarify your presentation.

Write clearly and simply.

Your test will be graded on the basis of whether you complete the tasks above.

Remaining assignments:

Professor Nobis will be in his office Thursday from 11:30 to 1. 
He will be at class regular time, for review and discussion, Friday as well.

1. Small group project on theodicy, due Wednesday after Thanksgiving, the last day of class. Assignment below.

2. Final exam on various arguments for and against God's existence and related issues. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, FROM 1PM-3PM
Since the last exam, we have read and discussed:
1. the cosmological argument(s),
2.  the teleological / design argument(s),
3.  arguments from religious experience(s), both as explicit attempts to reason from religious experience to justify religious beliefs, as well as the question of whether religious experiences justify religious beliefs without any explicit reasoning,
4. Pascal's wager,
5. argument(s) for the non-existence of God from the existence of certain kinds of evil.
This exam is an opportunity for you to show that you understand these arguments and the most common objections to them, i.e., that you are able to explain the argument and explain at least two objections to them.

For this in class exam, you need to be prepared to be able to carefully explain all these arguments and the objections. You will only be asked, however, to explain three of them, and you will be told which 3 at the time of the exam. 

 3. Final paper. I want you to find an argumentative essay on a topic in philosophy of religion and write a paper about it, to show that you are able to state an argument or explain an argumentative discussion, evaluate that argument and follow all the guidance about writing found in Vaughn and Pryor. I will provide many options for this, including:

•  God Is Not Dead Yet: How current philosophers argue for his existence. 

• God: Philosophers weigh in Alex Byrne, http://bostonreview.net/BR34.1/byrne.php 

  Good Minus God - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/ 

• Does It Matter Whether God Exists? http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/does-it-matter-whether-god-exists/   

• An Imperfect God, By YORAM HAZONY 

  Religion  and Respect, Simon Blackburn

   

If you do do a paper on another article, you must get that article approved by Dr. Nobis.

For any graduating seniors, this paper is due, in hardcopy (submitted in the philosophy and religion office) and via Turnitin, by Wednesday, December 5 at noon. 

For everyone else, this paper is due, in hardcopy (submitted in the philosophy and religion office) and via Turnitin, by Monday, December 10. Please feel free to send Dr. Nobis a draft for comments, and to submit early.

Next semester I am offering (in addition to Introduction to Philosophical Ethics) a course in Philosophy of Education. Some of the main concerns in philosophy of education are these:
- What *is* education?
- What is to be an educated person?
- How are education and (job) training different and similar?
- What is the value in education? What kinds of value are there in education?
- What is learning? What is teaching?
- Ethical and social issues in education: do people have a right to education? What are fair and just educational practices?
And many, many more. Check out the table of contents below!

Our main text is Randall Curren's anthology Philosophy of Education. It is currently available used on Amazon for $10.
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Education-Anthology-Blackwell-Anthologies/dp/1405130237

About the book:

Philosophy of Education: An Anthology brings together the essential historical and contemporary readings in the philosophy of education.

• The readings have been selected for their philosophical merit, their focus on important aspects of educational practice and their readability.
• Includes classic pieces by Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, and Dewey.
• Addresses topical issues such as teacher professionalism and accountability, the commercialization of schooling, multicultural education, and parental choice.

Part I: The Nature and Aims of Education.
Introduction..
What is Education?.
1. Turning the Psyche (Plato).
2. Knowing How to Rule and be Ruled as Justice Demands (Plato).
3. An Educated Person Can Speak Well and Persuade (Isocrates).
4. The Exercise of Reason (John Locke).
5. The Education of Nature (Jean-Jacques Rousseau).
6. The Democratic Conception of Education (John Dewey).
7. Education as Initiation (R. S. Peters).
8. Banking v. Problem-solving Models of Education (Paulo Freire).
Liberal Education and the Relationship between Education and Work.
9. Liberal v. "Mechanical" Education (Aristotle).
10. Learning the Value of Work (Jean-Jacques Rousseau).
11. Education for Labor and Leisure (John Dewey).
12. Education and Standards of Living (Amartya Sen).
13. The Liberal Studies in a Global World (Otfried Höffe).
Autonomy and Exit Rights.
14. The Child’s Right to an Open Future (Joel Feinberg).
15. Justice, Autonomy, and the Good (Eamonn Callan).
16. "Mistresses of their Own Destiny": Group Rights, Gender, and Realistic Rights of Exit (Susan Moller Okin).
Part II: Educational Authority.
Introduction..
The Boundaries of Educational Authority.
17. Education and the Limits of Stata Authority (John Stuart Mill).
18. Democracy and Democratic Education (Amy Gutmann).
19. Justice, Inequality, and Home Schooling (Charles L. Howell).
20. Is Teaching a Profession: How Would We Know? (Kenneth A. Strike).
21. The Crisis in Education (Hannah Arendt).
The Commercialization of Schooling.
22. The Role of Government in Education (Milton Friedman).
23. Commercialization or Citizenship: The Case of Education (Colin Crouch).
24. Channel One, the Anti-Commercial Principle, and the Discontinuous Ethos (Harry Brighouse).
Part III: Educational Responsibilities.
Introduction..
Educational Adequacy and Equality.
25. The Law of Zero-correlation (Thomas Green).
26. Interpreting Equal Educational Opportunity (Amy Gutmann).
27. Whom Must We Treat Equally for Educational Opportunity to be Equal?: (Christopher Jencks).
Diversity and Nondiscrimination.
28. Culture, Subculture, Multiculturalism: Educational Options (K. Anthony Appiah).
29. The Promise of Racial Integration in a Multicultural Age (Lawrence Blum).
30. "Getting Religion": Religion, Diversity, and Community in Public and Private Schools (Meira Levinson and Sanford Levinson).
Impairment, Disability, and Excellence.
31. The Myths of Learning Disabilities (G. E. Zuriff).
32. A Capability Perspective on Impairment, Disability, and Special Needs (Lorella Terzi).
33. Educating Gifted Children (Laura Purdy).
34. Perfectionism and Educational Policy (Joel Kupperman).
Part IV: Teaching and Learning.
Teaching.
35. Real Teaching (Philip W. Jackson).
36. The Teacher’s Grasp of Subject-Matter (Israel Scheffler).
37. Understanding Students (David T. Hansen).
38. Beyond the Reflective Teacher (Terence H. McLaughlin).
Discipline and Care.
39. Social Control (John Dewey).
40. The One-Caring as Teacher (Nel Noddings).
41. School Sexual Harassment Policies: The Need for Both Justice and Care (Elizabeth Chamberlain and Barbara Houston).
Inquiry, Understanding, and Constructivism.
42. Learning by Discovery (Jean-Jacques Rousseau).
43. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism (D.C. Phillips).
44. Constructivisms and Objectivity (Richard E. Grandy).
45. Education and the Advancement of Understanding (Catherine Z. Elgin).
Critical Thinking and Reasoning.
46. Reasoning with Children (John Locke).
47. Against Reasoning with Children (Jean-Jacques Rousseau).
48. Education for Critical Thinking (Matthew Lipman).
49. The Reasons Conception of Critical Thinking (Harvey Siegel).
50. The Value of Reason (Emily Robertson).
Grading and Testing.
51. A Discourse on Grading (Robert Paul Wolff).
52. Coercion and the Ethics of Grading and Testing (Randall Curren).
53. What is at Stake in Knowing the Content and Capabilities of Children’s Minds? A Case for Basing High Stakes Tests on Cognitive Models (Stephen P. Norris, Jacqueline P. Leighton, and Linda M. Phillips).
Part V: Curriculum and the Content of Schooling.
Introduction..
Moral Education.
54. Moral Conventions and Moral Lessons (Robert K. Fullinwider).
55. Cultivating the Moral and Intellectual Virtues (Randall Curren).
56. Motivation by Ideal (J. David Velleman).
Curricular Controversies.
57. Should We Teach Patriotic History? (Harry Brighouse).
58. Should Creationism be taught in the Public Schools? (Robert T. Pennock).
59. Conflicting Philosophies of School Sex Education (Michael J. Reiss).
60. The Artistic–Aesthetic Curriculum (Maxine Greene).
Index.

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405130229.html

Remaining assignments:

1. Small group project on theodicy, due Wednesday after Thanksgiving, the last day of class. Assignment below.

2. Final exam on various arguments for and against God's existence and related issues. Can you explain the basics of the cosmological argument(s), teleological / design argument(s), arguments from religious experience, argument from evil and so forth, and the main objections to these arguments? More details forthcoming. Day and time TBA: schedule hasn't been provided yet.

3. Final paper. I want you to find an argumentative essay on a topic in philosophy of religion and write a paper about it, to show that you are able to state an argument or explain an argumentative discussion, evaluate that argument and follow all the guidance about writing found in Vaughn and Pryor. I will provide many options for this, including:

•  God Is Not Dead Yet: How current philosophers argue for his existence. 

• God: Philosophers weigh in Alex Byrne, http://bostonreview.net/BR34.1/byrne.php 

  Good Minus God - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/ 

• Does It Matter Whether God Exists? http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/does-it-matter-whether-god-exists/  

 Many more options will be posted soon!!:) 

A group project

A group project assignment, due Wednesday after Thanksgiving (November 28):

Your assignment is to create an educational tool that will help people evaluating responses to the argument or problem of evil, i.e., an educational tool to help people evaluate theodicies.

Create your own group of 3 or 4 students. If you cannot find a group, you will be assigned to one.

Create a webpage or blog (on Blogger, Wordpress, Google Sites, wherever) where you do the following:

1. Explain the problem of evil or an argument for the non-existence of God from the existence of certain kinds of evils (do not consider an argument from the existence of evil in general: you need to focus on especially bad evils). That is, fully explain how someone might reason from the existence of certain kinds of evils - give examples -  to the conclusion that God probably does not exist. You want to present the strongest version of this argument that you can, not a "straw man" version of the argument.

2. Identify least five critical responses to this argument, that is five theodicies. Please pick theodicies that you think are most important, most common and/or the strongest.

3. Critically evaluate these theodicies, in light of the following concerns:
- what outweighing good does the theodicy propose? (You will likely need to distinguish intrinsic goods and evils/bads versus instrumental goods and evils/bads: e.g. something can be intrinsically bad but instrumentally good)
- how good is that good, compared to the bad of the evil(s) in question? Is the good great enough to "outweigh" the evil in question?
- could that good have been achieved in some other way, without that evil, or as much of the evil, in question? That is, is that evil necessary for that good, or could that good have been achieved without that evil (especially by an an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good being?)?
- so does this theodicy succeed in showing what would morally justify an all-knowing, all-powerful, all good being in allowing that evil to occur? Does this theodicy succeed or fail?

4. Your page should have an introduction and a conclusion. Your conclusion should state and explain what you think someone should think about the argument from evil (and its implications for God's existence), in light of your evaluation of the theodicies that you discuss. 

It should be developed in a way that someone interested in these important issues would be able to learn how to better attempt to rationally evaluate theodicies and think more philosophically -- i.e., critically, creatively and with an open mind -- about philosophy of religion.

5. Your page should be creative and look good!! :) The writing should be clear and straightforward and people should be able to learn from it.

Please email your link to Dr. Nobis, print it out and bring to class and post your link as a comment on this blog.

Relevant readings:
- Stairs chapter on the argument from evil
- Vuletic, A Tale of 12 Officers http://www.vuletic.com/hume/at/12.html
Daniel Howard Snyder, "Theodicy," in ed. Kelly James Clark, Readings in the Philosophy of Religion (Broadview 2008, 2nd edition)

Extra Credit

"sex, Sin & Scripture" will be comprised of three parts:
1) Thursday, November 8th 5:00-6:30 pm - Intolerance Museum: Kilgore South Loung will be turned into a museum full of exhibits which depict the effects of a theology which operates from a sex negative paradigm.
2) Sunday, November 11th 7:30 pm - For The Bible Tells Me So: In Nabrit Mapp Mcbay Lecture Room 2, a documentary will be shown which will help to enrich the discussion regarding the intersection between homosexuality and religion.
3) Tuesday, November 13th 7:00 pm - The Needed Conversation: In Sale Hall Chapel, a panel of seven clergymen from different Christian denominations will discuss the intersection between religion and sexuality from a sex neutral paradigm.
Attached is a Jpeg of the flyer for the program. Feel free to forward this to anyone you think may be interested.

S

We are going to revert to the policy on the syllabus: ATTENDANCE WILL BE TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CLASS FROM HERE ON OUT. ANY LATE STUDENTS WILL LOSE POINTS FROM THEIR FINAL GRADE. We are having some guest speakers and so it is especially important that students be on time.

For Wednesday, please read and re-read the chapters on religious experiences and miracles.

For Friday, please read the chapter on the argument from evil or problem of evil. We will also read this parable, "The Tale of the 12 Officers":
http://www.vuletic.com/hume/at/12.html

For Monday, your paper revision/rewrite on Harris is due.

Monday, we have a guest speaker, Mandisa Lateefah Thomas, from the Black Nonbelievers of Atlanta: http://blacknonbelievers.wordpress.com/ 
To prepare for that, please listen to this BBC (British Broadcasting Service) story on "Atheists in Black America":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00xvb70
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/docarchive/docarchive_20120915-1205a.mp3

Next Friday, the librarian will come to class to talk about research in philosophy and philosophy of religion. Be thinking about a final paper topic!

Optional revision or rewrite of Harris paper due in less than two weeks: next Friday (November 9), both online via Turnitin and in hardcopy in class.

Recall that the assignment, simply put, is this: explain three of Harris's main claims or arguments, raise at least one objection to those claims or arguments and evaluate that objection. Your paper, of course, should be well organized and clearly written. It should be such that you could submit it as a writing sample. You should follow all the advice from Vaughn, Pryor and from class.

You are encouraged to visit the writing center(s) and meet with Dr. Nobis. Here are some tips below.

To improve your writing, make a Youtube video (or Vimeo, which allows for password protection), or an MP3, of yourself reading your paper out loud! Then listen/watch critically: does what you say make sense? Are you easy to follow? Is your paper / presentation well organized? Then revise and rewrite accordingly!

Another tip: erase the first paragraph, copy the last paragraph, paste it at the beginning of the paper, and rewrite it so it's the introduction. Does that improve the paper?
 

Here are this week's assignments. I have to go to Tuskegee University today for some bioethics talks, so I will miss class. :(

Monday - please work on revising or rewriting your Harris papers. I encourage you to visit the writing center.

Morehouse Writing Center
Brawley 200

The Writing Center is open 9-5 for tutoring and/or independent use of computers. Tutors do not proofread or edit papers. They provide overall guidance on how students can improve their papers. The approach tutors take is peer review. They frequently reference the grammar text so students have some reference point.

Wednesday Oct 24 - Read Ch. 3 on Cosmological Arguments, write detailed summary of the chapter to turn in in class and via Turnitin. I will get these slots up very soon.

Friday Oct 24 - Read Ch. 2 on The Design Argument write detailed summary of the chapter to turn in in class and via Turnitin. I will get these slots up very soon.

Thanks! NN

Reading and writing assignments:

For this Friday - finish Ch. 8, including discussion of Pascal's Wager.

Monday - TBA

Wednesday Oct 24 - Read Ch. 3 on Cosmological Arguments, write detailed summary of the chapter to turn in in class and via Turnitin

Friday Oct 24 - Read Ch. 2 on The Design Argument write detailed summary of the chapter to turn in in class and via Turnitin.

I was thinking that instead of the cosmological argument, we should first look at this chapter:
Stairs 8: Faith and pragmatic reasons for belief
We will discuss this chapter Wednesday and Friday. Please read it carefully!

Guest speaker:
Dr. Horace Griffin !

Course:
Philosophy of Religion:

Main concerns:

Is there a God? Are there good reasons, good arguments, good evidence, to believe that there's a God? Or should we believe there's not a God (given the evils and, e.g., forms of discrimination -- e.g., racism, homophobia, etc., that have occurred?)? Which (if any) religious beliefs are rational?

Related (psychological / sociological / moral) concerns:

How do various religious beliefs influence one's moral views and ability to think about moral issues? Do they help? Hinder? How should religious beliefs influence social policy (if at all)?

68th Annual Family Institute Conference
October 14-17, 2012

Schedule

'

Sunday, October 14
2:30-4:50pm Wheeler Hall Rm. 214F	FACES Advisory Board Meeting
5:00-5:50pm Executive Conference Center Banquet Rooms	Pre Event Meet & Greet / Reception with VIP’s
6:00-8:30pm Executive Conference Center Banquet Rooms	Welcome Banquet and Opening Plenary Hosted by President Dr. Robert Franklin, President of Morehouse College Keynote: Michael Kimmel
Monday, October 15
9:00am-5pm Motorola Lobby	Conference Registration
9:00-10:30am Executive Conference Center Meeting Rooms A-F	Concurrent Sessions Moderators: Critical Thinking Leaders Session I:  The Power of Teaching Entrepreneurship to Black Children. Presenter: Ms. Samora Sobakwe-SoDaye Session II: The Masculinity Project. Presenters: Mr. DeWayne Powell and Mr. Daniel Edwards Session III: Transitions in Manhood: A Global Perspective Presenter: Dr. Mohanty Purna; Lineal Regeneration: Managing the Assets of Masculinity. Presenter: Mr. Charles Williams
11:00-12:30 Bank of America Auditorium	Plenary Session Men and African American Families Panelists: Michael Messner; Jennifer Hammer, Adia Harvey-Winfield, and Armon Perry
12:30-1:30pm	****LUNCH on your OWN ***
1:00-2:50pm Wheeler Hall Rm. 214F	Film Screening “Tough Guise” written by Jackson Katz Open forum discussion to follow Moderator: Dr. Anne Borden and Dr. M. Bilal King
3:00-5:00pm Bank of America Auditorium	Plenary Session Religion and Sexuality: The Role of Religion in Understanding Sexuality Panelists: Dr. Harold Bennett, Rev. Ernest Brooks, Mr. Chavis Jones. Moderator: Dr. Josef Sorett
6:00-8:00pm Bank of America Auditorium	Film Screening of “Hoodwinked”: What Black Men Think. Open forum discussion to follow Moderator: Mr. Janks Morton
Tuesday, October 16
9:00-5:00pm   Motorola Lobby	Registration
10:45-1:00pm African American Hall of Fame	Conference Luncheon Men Stopping Violence against Women Panelists: Dr. Anne Baird; Dr. Cynthia Neal Spence; Dr. Halbrook Polite, and Mr. Ramesh Kathanadhi (Men Stopping Violence)
1:00-2:15pm Executive Conference Center Meeting Rooms A-F	Concurrent Sessions Moderators:Dr. Fred Knight Session IV: Resonant Echoes: From Morehouse Men and Mentors-Benjamin Mays, Howard Thurman, Martin Luther King Jr. -21st Century issues of Personal Identity among Men at Morehouse. Presenters: Professors Dr. Kipton E. Jensen, Dr. Sam Livingston, and Dr. Illya Davis, Kyle Moore (student), Chavis Jones (student), and Katanga Johnson (student) Session V: Black Male Fathers: A Workshop. Presenter: Dr. Narviar Barker
2:25-3:40pm Executive Conference Center Meeting Rooms A-F	Plenary Session Black Masculinity and Health Outcomes Panelists: Dr. William L. Jeffries IV, Dr. Robert Aronson, and Mr. Robert B. Peterson
3:50-5:05 Executive Conference Center Meeting Rooms A-F	Concurrent Sessions Moderators:Dr. Fred Knight Session VI. Faculty interaction with campus diversity: Moderators: Dr. Linda Zatlin and Mr. Tre'vell Anderson; Discussants: FACULTY of Morehouse College (Faculty Session) Session VII. Integrating Masculinities and Sexualities into the Classroom. Presenters: Dr. Nathan Nobis; Dr. Anne Borden Gender Differences in Navigating Guyland. Presenter: Dr. Donald Gregory
6:30-9:00pm Ray Charles Performing Arts Center	Theatrical Presentation: “Emergency” Obie Award Winner Daniel Beaty Performance is 80 minutes and an informed discussion will follow the play.
Wednesday, October 17
10:00-11:50am Bank of America Leadership Auditorium	Anna Harvin Grant Student Paper Competition The First, Second, and Third Place student winners will present their work in a plenary session. Student Presenters TBA
12:00-1:00pm	Lunch on your own
1:00-2:30pm Wheeler Hall Rm. 214F	Word on the Campus: Student Dialogs What does it mean to be a “Man” at Morehouse College in the 21st Century? Moderator: Devon Lambert   Closing Remarks: Dr. Michael Hodge, Chair Department of Sociology, Morehouse College

Philosophy of Religion Paper on Harris Evaluation sheet; 20 points; due Monday, in class, Oct 14, in hardcopy and via Turnitin.com 

PLEASE BE ON TIME SINCE WE WILL LIKELY HAVE A GUEST OUTSIDE SPEAKER

Available in PDF here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=1HXT0JkAUy3X3KyUIxhZp5QxdEKvRW-JJU0n564cZQI9ZUqetizL8VRBEQiVn 

Recall the assignment:

“In this paper you should present three of the main claims or arguments from Harris, explain at least one objection to his arguments found in some online source, [changed, see below] and explain whether that objection is a strong objection or not, as well as explain - in your own view -- whether the other arguments from Harris are sound or not. Your paper should conform to all the guidance from Vaughn, and you must submit [a paragraph of reflection on how your paper has changed over the various drafts]. Note: obviously, you have done much of the work for this paper: now you must revise that work and expand on it.” “While I asked you to find some criticism(s) of Harris's claims, this perhaps was too ambitious at this time, and we will revisit this after we have met with the librarian. So, the assignment is now to write an essay where you clearly present and explain three of Harris's main claims or arguments in his Letter to a Christian Nation and you then explain whether at least one of those claims are true or his argument(s) sound or unsound. While you can use an outside source (as you were asked to find in an earlier assignment), you are not required to do so.”

Concern	Yes – No – Other	Comments
1.       Is there an introduction that conforms to Vaughn’s/Pryor’s guidance?
2.       Are three distinct main claims or arguments discussed?
3.       Are these three claims or arguments well explained? (Would Harris agree that you have accurately stated his claims or arguments and why he accepts them?)
4.       Is an objection to or an argument against at least one of the developed claims or arguments presented and adequately developed?
5.       Is this objection evaluated, i.e., do you explain whether the objection is a good one? (Do you think about how Harris would respond to the objection?)
6.       Is the paper well organized? Could it be outlined to display its structure?
7.       Are the sentences grammatical? Are all words spelled correctly?  Are all sentences punctuated correctly?
8.       Is the writing clear and straightforward, with short sentences and ordinary, common words?
9.       Would someone unfamiliar with Harris, or philosophy of religion, be able to read (or listen to) your paper and understand it?
10.    Is a proper citation method used?

Additional comments:

IMPORTANT UPDATES AND CHANGES:

QUIZ
1. Quiz on Friday covering
- Ch 1 & 2 of Vaughn (on basic concepts of of arguments: what arguments are, what logically valid
arguments are, what sound arguments are)
- Ch 1 and 10 of Stairs, on Concepts of God and God and Morality.

The quiz will NOT cover the Cosmological Argument, unlike what was previously mentioned. So will discuss an argument for God's existence like this next week:

1. Either the universe had a beginning or it did not have a beginning.
2. If it didn't have a beginning, then it wouldn't have started.
3. If it wouldn't have started, then it wouldn't exist.
4. But it does exist.
5. So it started.
6. So it had a beginning.
7. So God exists. 

There are other cosmological arguments as well.
PAPER
You have a paper on Harris due Monday, in class at class time and via Turnitin: if it is not submitted via Turnitin, it will not be graded.

The change is this. While I asked you to find some criticism(s) of Harris's claims, this perhaps was too ambitious at this time, and we will revisit this after we have met with the librarian. So, the assignment is now to write an essay where you clearly present and explain three of Harris's main claims or arguments in his Letter to a Christian Nation and you then explain whether at least one of those claims are true or his argument(s) sound or unsound. While you can use an outside source (as you were asked to find in an earlier assignment), you are not required to do so.

Here are some concerns to keep in mind for your paper:
1. You should follow all of Vaughn's advice on writing, as well as all advice given in class and here. You have been asked to read that book and really learn from it.
2. Your paper should be outline-able: that is, an outline could be made to show its structure.
3. You should write simply and straightforwardly. You should always try to write in the clearest possible manner: so no unusual or big words, unless an ordinary word wouldn't work.
4. Someone who hasn't read Harris should be able to read your paper and understand it.
5. Your paper should be carefully proofread: sentences should be grammatical, there should be no random capitalized words, quotes should be done correctly and so forth.
6. You should use a proper citation method.

Please also add a paragraph -- that is not park of the paper -- where you reflect on how your paper has changed over the various drafts.

Your job is to to show that you are able to read a short book, find three main claims or arguments and offer some criticism(s) of those arguments, and explain this all in a clear, well organized, concise, and understandable manner. Do a great job and show that you are a strong reader, thinker, writer and communicator!

I encourage you to read these "Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper" by Jim Pryor:
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 

Note to these students: I will have comments on your drafts by this afternoon if you can stop by around 2 or 2:30 or so. Or I can email them to you, if you gave me your email:
CM
JM
EM
TP
CR
KR
LS
JW