Reason & Religious Belief (RRB)

Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, eds. Reason & Religious Belief (RRB), (Oxford, 2003) 0195156951

Brian Davies, Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology (PRGA), (Oxford, 2000) 019875194X

Reading
Read RRB, chapter 1

Assignment
***Remember that page numbers provided after the question are those from RRB unless otherwise noted.
1. Confirm that you have read RRB, chapter 1
2. How is Philosophy of Religion different from the study of either Comparative Religion or World Religions?
3. Explain how the three main questions of Philosophy of Religion are related.
4. Describe how defining religion is a problem and illustrate why it is so. [6-7]
5. What do the authors of RRB propose as a working definition of “Religion”? Do you think their definition is satisfactory? [7-8]
6. What is a “belief” and what are the five areas a belief entails? [7]
7. Define “Philosophy of Religion” in 100 words. [8-9]
8. a. What is the approach of the editors toward Philosophy of Religion? [8-9]
b. What is at issue in the discussion of “the God of the philosophers” and “the God of faith”? [9-10]
9. Compare and contrast the reflective and unreflective persons. [11]
10. List and explain three points of the task of a philosopher of Religion. [12]
Reading
Read RRB, chapter 5 and PRGA, either 230-238, or 253-259 and 271-273 or 311-317 and 327-329.

Assignment
1. Confirm that you have read RRB, chapter 5, and PRGA, either 230-238, or 253-259 and 271-273 or 311-317 and 327-329.
2. What is meant by a “person-relative view of proof”? [78]
3. How do “proofs” serve either the theist or the non-theist? [78-79]
4. Describe in a few sentences the main points of each of the following “proofs”:
1. The Ontological Argument [79-83]
2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument [84-86]
3. The Atheistic Argument from the Big Bang [87-88]
4. The Atemporal Cosmological Argument [88-91]
5. The Analogical Teleological Argument [91-92]
6. The Anthropic Teleological Argument [93-95]
7. The Intelligent Design Teleological Argument [95-98]
8. The Moral Argument [98-100]

Click here for more on this paper>>>>
5. Discuss in a paragraph or two if you think there is a problem relating the “God” of the proofs with the theistic God of Christianity. [100-102]
6. List in two columns the points from the essays of either Hume and Anscombe, Paley and Kant, or Anselm (or Descartes) and Gaunilo. Title the column with the philosopher’s name, then begin with what you consider to be the strong points of the argument and you think were weak or what questions to which the writer did not reply. If it helps you to contrast the philosophers point-by-point, then you may do this as well.
William Paley Immanuel Kant
Strong points of Argument:
1.
2. Strong points of Argument:
1.
2.
Weak points of Argument:
1. Weak points of Argument:
1.

Reading
Read RRB, chapter 6 and PRGA, 83-94.
Assignment
1. Confirm that you have read RRB, chapter 6 and PRGA, 83-94.
2. What seems to be the problem of personal religious experiences? [107-108]
3. Define “Evidentialism” and how “Reformed Epistemology” is a part of it. [108-109]
4. What are the two distinctions foundationalists make concerning beliefs? [109-110]
5. a. How does a strong foundationalist define properly basic belief ? [110]
b. What is wrong with the strong foundationalist definition? [110-112]
6. a. Explain Chisholm’s notion of a properly basic belief. [112-113]
b. What did Alvin Plantinga do to make this notion one that supported rational belief in a god? [113]
7. What are three objections to Plantinga’s idea of a properly basic belief and how does he answer them? [113-117]
8. a. What did William Alston claim about religious experience? [117-118]
b. What are the three objections to this claim and how did Alston reply to them? [118-120]
9. a. How would you compare the belief that something is true and knowing something is true? [120]
b. How does Plantinga use the notion of warrant to show that one may “know” God exists? [121-122]
c. What is the complaint about Plantinga’s view? Do you think Plantinga’s reply is adequate? [122-123]
Reading
Read RRB, chapters 4, 7 and PRGA, 581-591, 614-624

Assignment
1. Confirm that you read RRB, chapters 4, 7 and PRGA, 581-591, 614-624.
2. What are the reasons for a philosopher to discuss the possibility of divine attributes? [58-60]
3. What things are assumed of the divine nature in order to justify describing God? Make sure that you point out the important contributions of Anselm and Augustine to this discussion. [60-62]
4. Explain in a short paragraph the main points of each of the following “attributes”:
a. Necessary and Self-Existent [62-64]
b. Personal and Free [64-67] <
c. All-Powerful, All-Knowing, Perfectly Good [67-70]
d. Eternal–Timeless and Everlasting [70-72]
5. a. What is the significance of
evil in philosophical discussion? [129]
b. How may “Evil” be defined? [129]
6. Describe the following positions on the problem of evil in a full page (but no more than two pages) each:
a. Logical Problem of Evil [130-133]
b. Evidential Problem of Evil [133-137]
7. Compare and contrast the arguments of “Defense” and “Theodicy,” then offer your evaluation of them. [137-139]
8. Name the six themes of theodicy and either discuss which one you prefer or why you do not find any of them appropriate. [140-142]
9. Explain in a few sentences the following “Global Theodicies”:
a. Augustinian Theodicy [144]
b. Irenaean Theodicy [144-146]
c. Process Theodicy [146-148]
10. Explain the “Horrendous Evils” argument and its implication for Theodicy. [148-149]
11. In at least one page, but no more than two pages, respond to a question about Theodicy. (E.g., does it make sense that God is all-good, all-knowing and that the world seems to have evil in it?) You may invent your own question or use one from the texts or the study guide. Use the question as the title to your essay. Make certain that you interact with the readings of Mackie and McCabe in PRGA in your essay, although you may choose to use one philosopher more than the other.
Reading

Read RRB, chapter 8 and PRGA, either 456-472 or 482-504
Assignment
1. Confirm that you have read RRB, chapter 8 and PRGA, either 456-472 or 482-504.
2. Construct a table contrasting at least five points between the views of the “traditional” view of God and the “Process” view of God. [155-157]

Click here for more on this paper>>>>
3. Describe the following views of Free Will and Determinism:
a. Compatibilist [157-158]
b. Libertarian [158]
c. Theistic Compatibilism [158]
d. Theological Determinism [158-160]
4. Explain in a page (but no more than a page and a half) “Middle Knowledge” or “Molinism” and the evaluations, both positive and negative, of the position. [160-163]
5. a. Define “simple foreknowledge” and provide your own illustration of it as well. [163-164]
b. Explain the objections against it. [164-167]
6. Explain the position known as Open Theism and include within how it compares with either simple foreknowledge or Molinism, and both the grounds for, and the objections to, it. [167-169]
7. In at least one page, but no more than two pages, evaluate the arguments of either Boethius and Pike on Omniscience or Aquinas and Wolterstorff on the eternity of the divine. Conclude with your own personal belief on the subject using what you learned about the two philosophers you read and wrote about.

Reading
Read RRB, chapter 9 and PRGA, 422-435
Assignment
1. Confirm that you have read RRB, chapter 9 and PRGA, 422-435.
2. Offer three definitions of “miracle” and after each definition state the objection to its use in explaining the word “miracle.” After each objection provide a counter-argument. Make sure you format your response in the order of definition, objection, and counter-argument for each of the three positions. [173-177]
3. Compare and contrast in a table Richard Swinburne’s and Antony Flew’s positions on miracles [177-180]
4. a. What is meant by “miracles as unexplainable events”? [180-181]
b. How do philosophers as Richard Swinburne and Margaret Boden respond to the charge that a miracle is an “unexplainable event”? [181-182]
c. According to Holland, what is the problem for those awaiting more “unexplainable events” in order to understand them? [182]
5. What is the difference between stating that a miracle is proof of the existence of God and that a miracle shows probability for the existence of God? Use one of the examples in the text or provide one of your own in order to reply to this question. [183-186]
6. Describe in one paragraph each the three sides of the “Evidentialist” debate concerning the resurrection and offer your own conclusions in a fourth paragraph. [186-190]

Click here for more on this paper>>>>
7. In at least one page, but no more than two pages, first write a paragraph explaining and only describing Swinburne’s position on the subject of miracles then a second paragraph on that of Hume, and finally a concluding paragraph with your personal evaluation of both.
Reading
Read RRB, chapter 2 and PRGA, 362-369, 382-386

Assignment
1. Confirm that you have read RRB, chapter 2 and PRGA, 362-369, 382-386.
2. Describe in one paragraph each the five kinds of religious experience. In a sixth paragraph assess these “types” of religious experience as to which ones, if any, would have the most impact on both the person undergoing it and telling other people about it? [16-19]
3. a. Discuss the understanding of the religious experience as a “feeling.” Include the main proponents of this explanation and how they try to describe what happens in a religious experience. [19-21]
b. What are the objections to it? [19-21]
4. a. Explain the notion of the religious experience as a “perceptual experience” in no more than a page. [21-24]
b. What is hoped to be gained from this understanding and what are the objections to it? [26-27]
5. a. Define the religious experience as an interpretation of beliefs. How is it related to the previous “perceptual experience” idea? [24-25]
b. What are the objections to this concept? [26-27]
6. Define in a paragraph the Principle of Credulity, then in a separate paragraph state the objections to it. Conclude with the possible counter-replies in a final paragraph. [27-29]
7. a. What is the relation of the diversity of religious experiences in understanding the Principle of Credulity? Does a diverse number of experiences justify or condemn them? [30-31]
b. What did William Stace claim were the common characteristics of experiences and how did he understand them? [31-32]
c. How did Steven Katz contend otherwise about religious experience? How did he think interpretation affected the experience? Explain the objection to his argument. [32-35]
8. In at least one page, but no more than two pages, write an essay discussing the points of either Martin or Alston from the PRGA readings, pointing out strengths and weaknesses of the argument. You do not need to compa
re one against the other but you may do so if you wish.

Reading
Read RRB, chapter 3 and PRGA, 25-35
Assignment
1. Confirm that you have read RRB, chapter 3 and PRGA, 25-35.
2. What is at issue between faith and reason? [40-41]
3. a. Define “Strong Rationalism.” You may use an illustration of your own if you wish. [41]
b. Explain W. K. Clifford’s arguments against religious beliefs. How does he reply to the objection that people do not have the time to explore all beliefs? [41-42]
c. How could a religious person use strong rationalism within religious circles? What problems would still remain for this or any kind of strong rationalist contention? [43-44]
4. a. Define “Fideism.” Although the textbook characterizes it as a religious view, could a non-religious thinker be a fideist of sorts? [45]
b. What is the fideist’s point about arguments? How could a fideist use Kierkegaard’s argument to respond about a lack of evidence concerning a belief? [45-46]
c. What are three objections to Fideism? (There are several noted, but describe only three.) [46-48]
5. a. Define “Critical Rationalism.” How does it differ from Strong Rationalism and Fideism? [49]
b. What are the steps of a critical rationalist in determining a particular belief? [50-51]
c. How does a critical rationalist proceed differently when investigating a religious worldview? What are some possible problems? [51-52]
6. In at least two pages, but no more than three pages, invent a creative dialogue between Clifford and Aquinas and how they would discuss the issue of belief with each other.
Reading
Read RRB, chapter 11 and PRGA, 143-152 or 153-167

Assignment
1. Confirm that you have read RRB, chapter 11 and PRGA, 143-152 or 153-167.
2. In a short paragraph explain two reasons philosophers explore religious language. [221-222]
3. Explain how each of the following philosophers understand analogy:
a. Thomas Aquinas [222]
b. James Ross [223-224]
c. Frederick Ferré [224]
4. Describe each of the following philosophers’ position on verification or falsification:
a. A. J. Ayer [225-226]
b. Anthony Flew [226-227]
c. R. M. Hare [227]
d. Basil Mitchell [227]
e. John Hick [227-228]
5. Discuss in a page the importance of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s theory of language and include within those he influenced, such as Braithwaite and Van Buren. [229-232]
6. Note and explain the main points of Paul Tillich’s understanding of religious language as symbolic and then describe some objections to it. [232-234]
7. a. Describe three feminist criticisms of the symbolic understanding of religion. [234-235]
b. How does Rosemary Ruether understand the monotheistic tradition? [235-236]
c. What does Sallie McFague use to understand religious language and what does she conclude because of it? [236]

Click here for more on this paper>>>>
8. a. What is William Alston’s critique of human language and how does he understand the literal application of predicate terms to God? [237-238]
b. How does Alston respond to those who believe that literal language is inadequate for “God-talk”? (You do not have to explain all the particulars involved in Alston’s theory on pp. 239-241.) [238-239]
9. In at least one page, but no more than two pages, discuss the use of language as shown by either Ayer and Swinburne or Flew and Aquinas. You are encouraged to argue for your preferred philosopher against the one whose argument you think is weaker, but you must stay within the format of either “Ayer vs. Swinburne” or “Flew vs. Aquinas,” as it were. Make certain that you do not merely build a “straw-man” of the philosopher whose idea you simply do not like, but try to understand why you believe that particular argument is weak. Show why it is possible that philosopher believes his argument is strong, but what he may have been missed in his contention.
Reading
Read RRB, chapter 10 and PRGA, 708-723

Assignment
1. Confirm that you have read RRB, chapter 10 and PRGA, 708-723.
2. Define the following terms in a sentence or two [195-196]:
a. Immortality
b. Reincarnation
c. Resurrection
d. Re-creation
e. Immortality language
f. Life-after-death language
3. Explain the following in a paragraph:
a. Immortality by remembrance [196]
b. Philosophical Difficulties of Life-after-Death [197]
c. Liberation from Life Cycles [197-198]
d. Personal Life after Death [198]
4. What are the objections to reducing a person to either the body or to experience (states of consciousness) and what could one conclude? [199]
5. Define the five arguments for Dualism (mind [soul] and body):
a. Privacy Argument [199-200]
b. Human Freedom [200]
c. Knowledge Argument [200]
d. Intentionality [200]
e. Paranormal Power [200]
6. Do you think any of the three dualistic theories are sound or are there problems with dualism? [201]
7. Discuss the “immortality of the soul” in a paragraph or two. [201-202]
8. What are the arguments against the concept of a soul? [202-204]
9. Describe the two theories of psychophysical unity. [204-205]
10. Explain the three views of Re-creation and Spatio-Temporal Continuity and the objections to them? Which one do you think is better argued (even if you disagree with it)? [205-210]
11. Draw up a table comparing the a posteriori with the a priori positions about life after death listing each of their important points and noted advocates briefly. Then discuss in a separate paragraph or two if any of these arguments seem good to you and why. [210-214] Set up your table as shown below:
Arguments for Life after Death
A Posteriori A Priori
Near-Death Experiences Ultimate End or Purpose
Mediumistic or Psychic Communication Moral Argument
Return of the Dead Imperishable Soul
12. After read
to and Russell, what are the strengths and weaknesses of both? Do either of them sound convincing to you and why?