Monday: Clark, Chapter 6. The Balance of Probabilities

15. Richard Swinburne, “A Cumulative Case for the Existence of God”
16. J.L. Mackie, “The Balance of Probabilities”

Wed.: no class.

Friday: Midterm due.

A WARNING ABOUT PLAGIARISM: Cheating and plagiarism are forms of lying (to the instructor, the school, future teachers and employers, and yourself, among others) and theft (of other people’s ideas and words) and are grounds for failing the course. If you submit a plagiarized paper (e.g., a paper you took in whole or in part from the internet or some other illegitimate source), the instructor (with the help of Turnitin.com) will notice this and you will then fail this course immediately: no excuses will be accepted. It is your responsibility to know what plagiarism is.
Here are some suggestions to avoid plagiarism: do not check the internet for anything related to your papers: instead use the texts required for the course and think for yourself; do not take phrases from the texts; put all of your writings in your own words; do not cut and paste anything from the internet into your paper; do not visit Wikipedia; do not take articles from online encyclopedias; do not visit online dictionaries; use an acceptable citation method (e.g., MLA, APA, etc.). If you would like additional sources to learn more about a topic, see the instructor.

Moral Arguments

Monday: read Plato from Clark. & Stairs Ch. 10. Questions from Clark due.

Wed.: Robert Adams from Clark & Stairs Ch. 10. Questions from Clark due.

Friday: Zagzebski from Clark & Stairs Ch. 10. Questions from Clark due.
Also, "WWJDWJWD? Comments on Linda Zagzebski's 'The Incarnation and Virtue Ethics'."
She mentions something on "divine simplicity," which I once wrote some comments about.

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

TAKE HOME MIDTERM

DUE: FRIDAY MARCH 2

According to the Morehouse Catalogue, the objectives of philosophy courses are "(1) to develop skills of critical and analytical thinking, (2) to develop the skills for constructing and evaluating argumentative essays, (3) to develop a knowledge of major themes, problems and issues in the history of philosophical thought, (4) to develop a familiarity with the theoretical problems of contemporary ethics, theory of knowledge, and metaphysics." (Philosophy of religion is, in many ways, applied ethics, theory of knowledge, and metaphysics.)

Your assignment is to show that you are developing and improving your skills at doing the above. Here’s the set-up:L

A friend has learned that you are in a philosophy of religion course and that you have recently discussed the three major arguments for God’s existence. Your friend wants you to come to his or her group and make a presentation on these arguments. Your friend wants you to

• clearly state the arguments in valid (or cogent) premise-conclusion format;
• explain how the conclusions follow logically (either deductively or non-deductively) from the premises;
• explain the best reasons that can be given in favor of the premises;
• most importantly, explain the best objections that can be given to the arguments, i.e., either (a) the best reasons to think that some premises are not true or (b) the best reasons to think that some of the premises have not been adequately defended; these objections need to be directed at specific, identified premises and
• on the basis of all this, explain whether we should think that these arguments are sound or strong or not and why: he wants you to defend your views with reasons.

Your job is to write up the presentation that does all this. It should have these parts.

I. A brief introduction that explains what you will do in this paper and what your overall thesis will be.

II. An explanation of what the concept of God is, according to classical theism.

III. A section on cosmological arguments: pick two versions of the argument by two different philosophers. Present, explain and critique these arguments.

IV. A section on design / teleological arguments: pick two versions of the argument by two different philosophers. Present, explain and critique these arguments.

V. A section on ontological arguments: pick two versions of the argument by two different philosophers. Present, explain and critique these arguments.

VI. BONUS: A section on moral arguments: pick two versions of the argument by two different philosophers. Present, explain and critique these arguments.

VII. Based on all the above, a conclusion.

Some guidance on how to write philosophy papers are here: Please read:

1. An online article by Jim Pryor called "Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper":
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

2. Some chapters on writing from A Rulebook for Arguments:

VII. Composing an Argumentative Essay
A. Exploring the Issue
VIII. Composing an Argumentative Essay
B. Main Points of the Essay
IX. Composing an Argumentative Essay
C. Writing
&
I. Composing a Short Argument: Some General Rules

3. Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, the section III. ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF COMPOSITION:
http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk5.html

4. Some tips from me:

• The most common comments I write on papers are these: (1) What do you mean? and (2) Why think that? The first is in response to unclear claims: write clearly. The second is in response to claims that need defense: give reasons.
• Write in short sentences: if any longer sentence can be broken into two or more sentences, do it because it's easier to read then.
• Each paragraph should deal with one, and only one, topic. You should be able to say, "This paragraph is about this: _____."
• Omit all needless words and needless discussion. Your reader's time is valuable so don't waste it.
• Make sure everything is clear. Use simple words: no need for anything nebulous.
• Your papers should have a short introduction, culminating in a thesis, a main point, the point that your paper is supposed to defend. The most direct way of presenting this sort of thesis is this: "I will argue that _(short sentence here: 'all abortions are wrong', 'Dr. Doopy's argument against euthenasia is unsound,' etc.___."
• Your introductory paragraph, or a paragraph immediately after it, should give the reader an overview of what you will be doing in the paper. It should briefly explain the overall structure (e.g., "First I will ___ and then I will ____. Finally I will ______.")
• Omit anything totally obvious and uninformative (e.g., "This issue has been debated for hundreds of years."). Everyone already knows this, so don't waste time telling us what we already know.
• Don't write, "Well, _____." No "well's".
• Don't say, "'Mr. Bubbles feels that this is wrong." Say, he believes, or thinks, or (if he does) argues. His views are probably not his "feelings" or his emotional reactions.
• Also, no ' . . . ' unless you are shortening a quote. No "trailing off" in hopes that the reader will think what you are hoping they will think.
• Don't ask rhetorical questions. Make statements, don't ask questions. Your reader might answer your questions for you in ways you'd like. But if you do ask questions, make sure there is a question mark.
  
• It's OK to use "I". People use "I" to communicate clearly, so use it.
• "Arguments" are not people's conclusions. They are the conclusions and the reasons they give in favor of those conclusions.
• If I ask you to raise objections to a theory, argument, claim, or whatever, it's fine to raise objections that are discussed in our readings. What's not good, however, is to raise an objection that is discussed in the readings but the author responds to the objection and shows that it's not a good objection. If you raise this same objection, but do not discuss the author's response (and respond to that response), this suggests that you didn't do the reading very closely.
• If an author states a conclusion (or a main point) and gives reasons for it, then that author has given an argument. If an author has given an argument, do not say that the author has not given an argument: you might not have found the argument (yet), but the argument is still there! Keep looking!
• Keep focused and don't argue for more than you can give reasons for.
• You have succeeded in writing a paper if you can give that paper to a smart and critical someone who is not familiar with your topic and this person will understand the views and arguments you are discussing, as well as whatever criticisms you raise. You can do an empirical test to determine whether you are writing well, and it's basically just to see if others understand your writing! If not, you need to keep working at it.
• Finally, good writing, like many things, takes a lot of time. If you don't take the time to work at it, you probably won't do very well and you probably won't improve. I recommend writing something about double the length needed and then editing down and re-organizing and re-writing to remove the needless words, irrelevant distractions, and -- most importantly -- improve your statement of whatever argument you are trying to develop.

Metaphysics

Some of the topics we've covered have been in the broad category of "metaphysics." Here is an excellent and fun to read short book that gives an overview of many topics in (analytic) metaphysics.

Riddles of Existence: A Guided Tour of Metaphysics

Earl Conee and Theodore Sider

This is an introduction to metaphysics for students and non-philosophers. (Philosophers: it's supposed to be the kind of book you can give to your friends and family, when they ask what you do for a living.) It is published by Oxford University Press.

• Introduction
• Chapter 1 (Sider): Personal Identity over Time, and chapter 5 (Conee): Why Not Nothing?

Extra Credit Opportunity

An extra credit opportunity related to this event this Saturday:

http://www.morehouse.edu/events/2007/reflections.html

The 2007 Bennie and Candle honorees will be featured in Reflections of Excellence, a panel discussion with Q & A, moderated this year by Monica Pearson, Anchorwoman, WSB TV, on Saturday, February 17, 2007, at 11:00 A.M. in King Chapel. PLEASE BE ON TIME! At this time, Dr. Melvin Smith'61, Robert C. Davidson, Jr.'67, Senator Leroy Johnson '49, Rev. Dr. Amos C. Brown Sr. '64, Alden McDonald, Dr. Joseph Lowery, Roscoe Lee Browne, and Sidney Poitier will discuss their "road to success" and will provide "prescriptions for overcoming obstacles to achieve success."

Students can attend this event for "extra credit" to them for writing on one of the topics below. Because of the tremendous benefits that students derive from attending this program, students will not want to miss this wonderful event.

2007 MOREHOUSE COLLEGE

REFLECTIONS OF EXCELLENCE

TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND WRITING

1. Sidney Poitier was ridiculed when he applied for his first acting job because of his thick Bahamian accent. Determined not to be a dishwasher all of his life, Poitier learned to speak English in a compelling manner by

listening to announcers on the radio. He achieved considerable success because of his determination to overcome obstacles.

What obstacles have you had to overcome to get this far in your career? What challenges do you still face that you are struggling to overcome? What is your “game plan” for overcoming obstacles and for achieving success?

2. Alden McDonald, president and CEO of Liberty Bank and Trust Company in New Orleans, often speaks about “doing well by doing good.” Robert Davidson ’67, prominent businessman, says that his lifelong effort has been “to help others, especially the underprivileged and children.”

Senator Leroy Johnson ‘49, the first African American to become a senator in Georgia since Reconstruction, was always available to help others. Julian Bond said of him: “Anybody can call him, day or night, for any kind of legal or political help.”

Dr. Joseph Lowery has spent his entire life fighting for human and civil right, and he was a prominent figure with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during the Civil Rights Movement.

What is the “bottom line” of obligation for those who have succeeded? Are there any mandates by which successful leaders are to provide service once they have succeeded? Are there any limits? If so, what are they and why?

3. When famed actor, director, and producer Sidney Poitier was a sickly baby and his father thought that he was going to die, his mother took the baby to a soothsayer who predicted that the baby would, indeed, live. She also predicted that one day Sidney would “travel the world over and walk among kings.” Poitier’s outstanding career in arts and entertainment has well fulfilled this prediction.

When Rev. Dr. Amos Brown, civil rights activist and pastor, was eight years old, his Sunday School teacher told him that, like the biblical prophet Amos, he would “bear the burdens of the people.” By the time Amos was 14 years old, he was working with Medgar Evers, amid the violence and racism in the Mississippi Delta, registering blacks to vote. Dr. Brown has continued all of his life to challenge the status quo when human rights have been violated.

In both cases, the predictions have been borne out and demonstrated throughout illustrious careers.

Do you think “greatness” is sometimes or always predestined? That is, are there certain people who are marked for servant-leadership from the time they are born. Do you know of similar predictions that have been fulfilled through the life and work of the individuals?

4. Dr. Melvin Smith’61, world-renowned pediatric surgeon, invented ( with the assistance of Dr. Robert Campbell) the Vertical Expandable Titanium Rib Prosthesis that has saved the lives of hundreds of children all over the world born with birth defects.

Do some reflection on your own aspirations, goals, and priorities. Then write an essay in which you outline the various career opportunities you would like to pursue beyond your major at Morehouse. What do you plan to “invent”or create that will make life better for those who use it?

5. Which of the honorees inspired you to “raise the bar of excellence” in the pursuit of your career and life goals?

Discuss.

Friday: Moral Arguments Schedule

Friday we'll say more about the ontological arguments, but then we should move on to Moral Arguments.

Actually why don't we just start Moral Arguments Monday? There's still plenty to talk about re. ontological arguments.

Monday: read Plato from Clark. & Stairs Ch. 10. Questions from Clark due.

Wed.: Robert Adams from Clark & Stairs Ch. 10. Questions from Clark due.

Friday: Zagzebski from Clark & Stairs Ch. 10. Questions from Clark due.

Ontological arguments

Some notes from today:

Anselms' argument, simplified.

He assumes that we (even "fool" atheists) have the concept of God, i.e., the idea of "the being who none greater can be conceived" i.e., thought. (Question: do we have such a concept? Is the concept coherent? Is a being like this possible? Perhaps not: perhaps

Here's the argument, simplified.

1. Either (a) "the being whom none greater can be conceived" exists only as a concept or an idea or (b) "the being whom none greater can be conceived" exists both as a concept and in reality.
2. To exist in reality is greater than to exist only as a concept or an idea. [see Anselm, end of 2nd paragraph, p. 71 of handout; Stairs premise 2, p. 82]
3. If (2) is true and if (a), the claim that "the being whom none greater can be conceived" exists only as a concept or an idea is true, then there exists a being greater than "the being whom none greater can be conceived."
4. But there cannot be a being greater than "the being whom none greater can be conceived," because that's a contraction.
5. So, (a) is not an option.
6. So, (b) "the being whom none greater can be conceived" exists both as a concept and in reality.
7. So, God exists, the being whom none greater can be conceived.

The basic logic:
1. Either A or B.
2. If B is true, then C is true.
3. But C is not true (because C is contradictory)
4. So, not B. (2, 3 Modus Tollens)
5. So, A. (1, 4, Disjunctive Syllogism).

Here's the argument from the Descartes' Fifth Meditation with a modifed translation:

If I can clearly and distinctly think the idea of something, then everything which I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it. "Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature." (AT 7:65; CSM 2:45).

So here's the argument:
1. If we can clearly and distinctly think the idea of something, then everything which we clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it.
2. We can clearly and distinctly perceive the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being.
3. We can clearly and distinctly perceive that he always exists.
4. Therefore, since (1), (2) and (3) are true, God exists.

Here's an ontological argument commonly attributed to Descartes (but perhaps without textual evidence, since this is a bit different than the argument above?):

1. God is an all-perfect being.
2. An all-perfect being has every perfection (i.e., a great-making quality).
3. Existence is a perfection (i.e., a great-making quality; for something to exist makes it greater than for it not to exist: recall Anselm's "To exist in reality is greater than to exist only as a concept or an idea").

For discussion on Descartes' ontological arguments, see here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/

Questions:

• Are there reasons to think that any of the premises in these arguments are false?
• Are there reasons to think that any of the premises in these arguments assume the conclusion they are supposed to support?
• What about Gaunilo's objection that Anselm's argument can be used to "show" the existence of any "perfect" thing whatsoever (e.g., the island which none greater can be conceived, the tattoo needle which none greater can be conceived, etc.), and so is faulty? Are they any good?
  

Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument:
next time!