Philosophy 3600 - Philosophy of Religion

Study Guide for Second Essay Exam

 

 

The Second Essay Exam will take place on Monday, April 28 in class. It's a bluebook exam so you must bring a blue book. You must also bring (and write your exam in) blue or black ink (no red ink, no pencil).

The Second Essay Exam is an essay exam. You will be required to write an essay having to do with one of the following topics:

To prepare, focus on your notes from lecture and the lists of topics covered on each day (which you will find on the "What We Did Each Day" page ). For each item on these lists (whether a thesis, a definition, an argument, or whatever), be sure you have total mastery of it. If it if a thesis, for example, be sure you totally understand what it is saying -- so much so that you could get a friend of yours who knows nothing about philosophy to understand what it is saying. Obviously, this includes being able to define any philosophical technical terms in it.

If the item is an argument, be sure you get each step of the argument; be sure that for every step of the argument, you fully understand what it is saying and, moreover, why a defender of the argument would think it is true (notice that this is importantly different from just knowing what the premise is saying). Also be prepared to give your own evaluation of all of our arguments. I'm most impressed when someone challenges an argument in a novel and plausible way. If you think some argument is sound, you can still be impressive by presenting some interesting potential objection to the argument in a convincing way, and then showing why you think this potential objection fails.

But the best way to prepare for this exam is to write out answers to these questions below. I'm not saying any of these exact topics will be on your exam, but they give you a good idea of the kind of thing I'm looking for. Just looking over these questions and thinking about them is nowhere near as helpful as actually writing out answers. We often don't know what we understand until we try to express it in writing.

 

Study Questions

  1. The Augustinian Version of the Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge.

    Present both interpretations of the Augustinian Version of the Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge that we discussed. Explain exactly the way in which they differ, illustrating this by means of examples.

    Then, for each interpretation, explain why it fails (the reason you give for why one of them fails should not also apply to the other interpretation).

    Finally, explain and critically evaluate Augustine's own response to his argument (his response would be the same for either interpretation).

  2. The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge.

    Explain, very thoroughly, step by step, why it seems that, for any act anyone every performs, the fact that God knew in advance that the person would perform it renders it unfree.

    Explain what you take to be an interesting but unsuccessful objection to this line of thought. When doing so, be sure to explain exactly which step this objection is attacking. Be sure to present the objection as forcefully as you can.

    Finally, explain as thoroughly and clearly as you can why you think this objection is unsuccessful.
  3. Pascal's Wager

    Explain why the Dominating Expected Value version of Pascal's Wager harder to defeat than the Expected Value Version of Pascal's Wager. Doing so will require explaining, in some detail, each version and providing all the necessary background for understanding Pascal's wager.

    Present some version or other of the Many-Gods Objection to the Dominating Expected Value version of Pascal's Wager. Explain the objection in detail, and, as always, explain it so that someone totally unfamiliar with this material would go away understanding it.

    Finally, consider a reply to the Many-Gods Objection based on the following idea:

    "The Many-Gods Objection fails because there is really only one God each of us could ever manage to get ourselves to believe in."

    Explain exactly why, if what this reply claims is true, the Many-Gods Objection fails.

    Finally, critically evaluate this reply. Is it a successful reply to the Many-Gods Objection? Explain.

  4. The Ontological Argument

    Explain, step by step, how Anselm attempts to prove the existence of the greatest conceivable being. (Your explanation should include a discussion of: Anselm's key distinction, Anselm's Thesis about Greatness, along with independent reasons to think each of them is true.)

    Present an objection to Anselm's argument (if you want, you may present one we didn't discuss in class). Explain in detail exactly how this objection is supposed to make trouble for Anselm's argument.

    Finally, think of some sort of reply Anselm might make to the objection, explain it in detail, and then adjudicate the debate -- i.e., explain who, in your opinion, is right.


  5. The Fine-Tuning Argument

    Explain, step by step, the Fine-Tuning Argument for the existence of God. During your explanation, you will appeal to a principle of confirmation theory. Illustrate this principle by means of an example. (Your explanation here should also include some specifics of the evidence from physics.)

    Explain what you take to be a bad objection to the Fine-Tuning Argument and explain what is wrong with it.

    Finally, give your own view about the Fine-Tuning argument. Do you think it establishes that there is very strong evidence for the existence of some sort of God? Explain your view on this argument. (If you think the argument is unsuccessful, you must clearly present your objection to it.)


  6. Personal Identity and Life After Death

    In class and in the readings four different theories about personal identity and the nature of persons were discussed.

    Pick one such theory that you think is false. Present and explain that theory thoroughly and clearly. Illustrate it by means of an example or two. Explain what that theory implies about the possibility of life after death. Finally, explain why you think this theory is mistaken. As always, explain it so that someone totally unfamiliar with all of this would go away fully understanding it.

    Pick another such theory that you think is the most likely to be true (it could even be one we didn't discuss in class; it could also be an undiscussed variant of one that we did discuss). Present and explain that theory thoroughly and clearly. Illustrate it by means of an example or two. Explain what that theory implies about the possibility of life after death. Present an objection that someone might plausibly raise to the theory, and then explain why you think the theory can successfully answer this objection.


home