Second Paper Assignment

Philosophy of Religion

Professor McCormick

At the bottom of your Google Doc, write this paper:

Part 1: What's My Problem

On the first page of this paper, do this:

1) Write "In my previous paper, my problems were:" at the top.

2) Write a numbered list where you describe the kinds of mistakes that you made on your previous papers.

3) Then write, "On this paper, I have tried hard, oh so very, very hard to correct these mistakes."

4) Then sign your name in blood.

Part 2: Choose either topic A or B

A. The Argument from Religious Experience

In this video, William Lane Craig reports having a “self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit” that gives him knowledge that Christianity is true “wholly apart from the evidence.” This appears to be some form of mystical or religious experience. The apostle Paul, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism) are all likewise said to have had special experiences that gave them compelling insights into God.

First, reconstruct and explain what sorts of experiences these people are having and what truths they are deriving from them. These three Wikipedia articles are useful for details of the latter three:

Paul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle

Muhammad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad, the section titled: Beginnings of the Qur’an.

Smith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

Second, being as charitable as you can, explain how and why someone with these sorts of experiences might conclude that God or an angel was speaking to them or that these experiences are authentic indicators of religious truths. Make the strongest case in favor of religious experience that you can. What conclusions did these people draw from the experiences? What was their evidence?

Third, present and explain at least two serious objections to the argument from religious experience. Develop your points, making the objections clear and specific with regard to the accounts above.

Fourth, if you think that there are adequate answers to the objections that an advocate of the argument from religious experience could give, explain them. Or, if you think the objections undermine the argument, explain how and draw your conclusion about this sort of approach to religious truths.

B. Deductive Atheology

There is a partial list of some of the properties that have been frequently attributed to God below.

1. Choose 1 or 2 of these properties.

2. Argue either for or against the compatibility or possibility of these properties. That is, argue that it is or it is not possible for a being to possess these properties.

Arguing that a being cannot possess a combination of properties will require defining and explaining the properties and then making it clear how it is that the properties themselves are incompatible or some implication of having the properties is incompatible.

Do not argue that the existence of evil is incompatible with some of God's properties. This argument for this paper should be distinct from the problem of evil and should concern only God's properties and their relationship to each other.

Here is a brief example of the sort of deductive atheological argument you should be presenting and defending or objecting to:

For instance, being q) embodied and being p) outside of space would appear to be incompatible because in order to have a body, a thing would need to occupy space, but in order to be outside of space a thing could not occupy or be in space. (Don't use this pair in your paper.)

Example of reconstructed argument:

1. If God exists, then God is embodied.

2. If God exists, then God is outside of space.

3. If God is embodied, then God occupies space.

4. If God is outside of space, then God does not occupy space.

5. Therefore, if God exists, then God both occupies space and does not occupy space.

6. But it is impossible to both occupy and not occupy space.

7. Therefore, God does not exist.

This reconstructed version of the argument makes the contradiction explicit. A paper that argues for this conclusion would need to carefully and clearly explain and defend each one of these premises, as well as consider objections. Defending these premises requires giving convincing reasons for thinking that each premise is true.

If you choose to argue that some pair properties are compatible, that will require clearly defining and explaining the properties, and then making it clear how it is that there is no conflict between them or the implications of possessing them. Choosing this option will probably require that you at least consider some initial reasons why we might suspect that a being could not possess these properties.

If you choose to argue that a single property on the list is impossible and cannot be possessed by any being, that will require clearly defining and explaining the term, and giving an argument for why the term is incoherent, or the implications of having it are contradictory.