PHIL 3600 -- Philosophy of Religion
Spring 2014
Prof. Chris Heathwood
University of Colorado Boulder
Second Paper
3-5 pages (900-1,500 words)
due Monday, April 21 in class
Option 1: Pre-Assigned Topics: Write a 3-5 page (900-1,500 word) paper on one of the following topics. Indicate at the top of your paper, by letter and name, which topic you have chosen. Please also re-read the paper guidelines. Although they were written especially for those not writing on a pre-assigned topic, these guidelines will still help you if you are doing a pre-assigned topic.
- Pascal's 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 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
Option 2: Open Topic: Write a 3-5 page (900-1,500 word) paper in which you defend, by means of rational argument, a thesis of your choosing on one of the following topics: Pascal's Wager, Anselm's 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. Before you begin,re-read the paper guidelines.