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.

Hi Philosophers of Religion,
Our first task in reading Harris's small book is understanding and accurate comprehension. After that, our tasks will include criticism -- arguments against his arguments, responses to his arguments, arguments against some of his claims, etc. -- and the evaluation of that criticism.
With this in mind, I'll encourage you to start finding discussion of his book to find objections. You can Google him and/or the book's title, check out the Amazon reviews, go to Google scholar and other sources.
So while understanding and comprehension are our current tasks, get ready to move on to higher tasks too.

See the blog for the line up of presenters for tomorrow and Friday!
NN

For Wednesday, Friday and next Monday

Library Orientation Sessions

ATTN: ALL PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION MAJORS (AND MINORS) AND ANY OTHER INTERESTED STUDENTS. 

ALL MAJORS AND MINORS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND ONE OF THREE POSSIBLE “LIBRARY RESOURCES ORIENTATION” SESSIONS,

OFFERED IN EARLY SEPTEMBER – BY MR. BRAD OST – AT THE

ROBERT WOODRUFF ATLANTA UNIVERSITY CENTER LIBRARY.

SEPTEMBER 11TH, 18TH, and 25TH in RWAUC LIBRARY, ROOM # 215, @ 11:00-12:00.

SIGN-UP SHEET OUTSIDE DR. BENNETT’S OFFICE!

For more information, contact Dr. Nobis (Sale 110) or Dr. Jensen (Sale 108a).

SEPTEMBER 11:

RWAUC LIBRARY, ROOM 215.

11:00 – 12:00

SEPTEMBER 18:

RWAUC LIBRARY, ROOM 215.

11:00 – 12:00

SEPTEMBER 25:

RWAUC LIBRARY, ROOM 215.

11:00 – 12:00

Some “Notes to the Reader” in Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation
PDF here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=1mA2YsuKTApulQN5Y-voKKVcrnw3Tnjog3R1DMxsmMM_u-e16sUU8Sm6wGpJw 

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.

p. vii:

People have told Harris that he is “wrong” to not believe in God. Many of these messages have been “hostile.” This hostility might be due to “human nature,” if it is our nature to respond with hostility to those who we disagree with. Or it might be due to an influence of religion. Or both? How might we know?

A question: what does it mean to say that someone is “wrong” to believe (or not believe) something?

Another question: if an advocate of beliefs X responds with hostility in defense of X, does that mean that beliefs X are false or unreasonable? No.

p. viii:

Harris says his book is intended for all faiths [and we will see what other religions are discussed]. But it is written as a letter to a Christian. Why would he do that?

He will respond to many arguments Christians give in favor of their religious belief.

Question: what arguments do they give? Are any of these arguments good? Are any bad? How would we know?

He will try to “arm secularists” who believe religion should be kept out of public policy.

Question: what role, if any, should religion have in public policy?

He defines what he means by a Christian (is this definition correct?). And observes that the beliefs of “conservative’ Christians have influence over society. (do they?)

p. ix.

He claims he will try to “demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity.’

                Question: what are these? What would it be to “demolish” them?

He mentions that there are different kinds of Christians: “conservative,” “liberal”, “moderate”. He observes that the “liberals” and “moderate” might agree with him on much concerning the “conservatives.” But he does note that the “conservatives” and “liberals” rarely question the legitimacy of raising a child with Christian, Jewish or Muslim beliefs: they have this in common with “conservatives.’

Question: is it legitimate to raise a child with any of these beliefs? Why might someone think it is? Why might someone think it’s not?

He’s going to focus on a certain kind of conservative Christianity, at its most “divisive, injurious and retrograde,” on that both “moderates”, “liberals” and nonbelievers all disagree with.

Question: what are these claims, what does he mean? Why might someone think they are true? Why think they are false?

p. x

Some mention of (Biblically literal) “creationism,” “intelligent design” and evolution. The claim is that those who believe in creationism – i.e., a view that the universe is about 6000 years old – is highly unscientific.  

Question: is this all true? How many people hold such (literal) creationist views? (Need to check surveys). Are such views indeed unscientific? Is evolution scientific?

p. xi

Worries expressed about this: if people hold unscientific or anti-scientific views, it might be a problem if they are electing government officials or are government officials. Assumption: governance and social policy should be guided by science. Those who hold un- or anti-scientific views about the origins of the universe will likely hold un- or anti-scientific views about other scientific matters? Is it bad to hold unscientific views?

p. xxi.

At least some Christians (how many?) believe Jesus will return soon (a good thing, on their view [right?]), after a big disaster. (Do they think this? Why?). If someone believes this, how might this influence their beliefs about the future, e.g., the environment, society, economy, etc?

Harris says this is claimed “purely on the basis of religious dogma.” Is this true?

Harris claims that people believing these sorts of things, since there are many of them (are there?) and they have influence on society (do they?) results in an “emergency.”

Hello Philosophers of Religion,
Yesterday's class made clear that we really need to focus more on concepts of arguments -- what they are, how to find them, how to evaluate them -- since that's what we will do in this class: finding the arguments in readings and presentations and evaluate them in engaging, responsive manners.

In light of that, please read these:
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/argument.html
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/goodbad.html

And chapter 2 in Vaughn on "How to Read An Argument."

Thanks and more later!!
NN

Philosophical issues or questions =

-          Often disagreements about them …

-          Conceptual analysis questions: what is this? Result in various principles.. to apply to cases

-          Science alone can’t answer these questions, but science can be relevant.. and often essential to answering the question.

-          Are answered by appealing to reasons and arguments … not entirely empirical or scientific, wil  often involve trying to analyze concepts…

Some people act in a certain ways  (?) .. .. what causes this? Human nature? Or their religion? 

For Friday, please read up to page 12. and write a list of philosophical issues from those pages.