PHIL 3600 -- Philosophy of Religion
Fall 2014
Prof. Chris Heathwood
University of Colorado Boulder

Second Paper

due Friday, November 21 in class

 

Option 1: Open Topic:  Write a 1,000-2,000 word (roughly 3-6 page) paper in which you defend, by means of rational argument, a thesis of your choosing on one of the following topics: the Problem of Evil, Pascal's Wager, the Ontological Argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument, the "No Evidence" Argument, or the Argument from Divine Silence.  Indicate at the top of your paper that you have chosen the "Open Topic" option, and indicate which of the topics above you are writing on.  Before you begin, you are required read the Philosophy Paper FAQ.  Read it more than once.

Option 2: Pre-Assigned Topic: Write a 1,000-2,000 word (roughly 3-6 page) paper on one of the topics below.  Indicate at the top of your paper, by number and name, which topic you have chosen.  Before you begin, you are required read the Philosophy Paper FAQ.  Read it more than once.

  1. Pascal's Wager and William James' Objection. Is William James' objection to Pascal's Wager a good one?  In "The Logic of Pascal's Wager," Ian Hacking writes, "many of us will share William James's suspicion that a person who becomes a believer for the reasons urged by Pascal is not going to get the pay-offs he hopes for" (189).  Write a paper in which you
    (i) explain what you take to be the strongest version of Pascal's Wager for the conclusion that one ought to believe in God;
    (ii) clearly and thoroughly explain what you take William James' objection to be (you may hunt down, look at, and draw from James' original discussion     if you like, though that is not required);
    (iii) evaluate the objection.  Does it succeed?  If you think it does, present a reply that Pascal might give and then explain why you don't think that reply ultimately succeeds.  If you think it doesn't succeed, explain why.
  2. Pascal Wager and the Many-Gods Objection.  Does the many-gods objection refute Pascal's Wager?  Write a paper in which you
    (i) explain what you take to be the strongest version of Pascal's Wager for the conclusion that one ought to believe in God;
    (ii) clearly and thoroughly explain some version of the many-gods objection     to this argument;
    (iii) evaluate the objection.  Does it succeed?  If you think it does, present a reply that Pascal might give and then explain why you don't think it ultimately succeeds.  If you think it doesn't succeed, explain why.

  3. Anselm's Ontological Argument, Gaunilo's Objection, and Plantinga's Reply.  Is Gaunilo's objection to Anselm's ontological argument successful?  Write a paper in which you
    (i) explain Anselm's ontological argument;
    (ii) explain Gaunilo's objection to Anselm's argument
    (iii) explain Plantinga's reply to Gaunilo's objection on behalf of Anselm;
    (iv)     evaluate Plantinga's reply.  Does it succeed in showing that Gaunilo's parody argument is relevantly disanalogous to Anselm's argument?  Why or why not?  Has Plantinga shown that no parody arguments are likely to succeed against Anselm?

  4. The Fine-Tuning Argument.  Is the Fine-Tuning Argument open to a decisive objection?  Write a paper in which you
    (i) explain the Fine-Tuning argument for God's existence;
    (ii) explain what you take to be the strongest objection to the Fine-Tuning Argument;
    (iii) evaluate this objection.  Does it succeed?  If you think it does, present a reply that a proponent of the Fine-Tuning Argument might give and then explain why you don't think that reply ultimately succeeds.  If you think the objection doesn't succeed, explain why.

  5. The "No Evidence" Argument.  Is Hawthorn's defense of the a priori knowability of God's existence plausible?
    (i) explain the "No Evidence" Argument for the claim that there is no reason to believe in God;
    (ii) explain Hawthorn's objection to the premise that God's existence is not knowable a priori (this will require explaining his accounts of self-evidence and faith);
    (iii) evaluate Hawthorn's attempt to show that God's existence might be knowable a priori.  Is it plausible?  If you think it is, present a rebuttal that an atheist might give and then explain why you don't think that that rebuttal ultimately succeeds.  If you think Hawthorn's view is not plausible, explain why.