Problem of Evil Paper Assignments

http://www.csus.edu/phil/Guidance/WritingGuidelines.htmlThese papers are intended to allow students to show their comprehension of the arguments, concepts, and issues concerning some important debate within the problem of evil discussion. And they are intended to allow the student to demonstrate her critical analysis skills, her philosophical acumen, and her ability to produce clear, thoughtful philosophical arguments of her own. Good papers will excel at both charitable exposition and critical evaluation.

All work should be carefully composed and edited. Do not turn in rough or first draft work. There should be no spelling or grammar errors. Paragraphs should be thoughtfully composed with a clear thesis sentence. The papers should conform all of the requirements described in the Philosophy Department Writing Guidelines

It not necessary to consult other secondary sources to do well on these papers. If you do, all work should be cited appropriately. Follow the Writing Guidelines for citations. No plagiarism of any sort will be tolerated. At a minimum, plagiarized work will receive zero credit. In most cases, plagiarists are also failed from the course and

reported to the Vice President of Student Affairs for disciplinary action.

Paper Assignment 1: Plantinga's Freewill Defense. In response to the argument that evil and God are logically incompatible, Plantinga says, “What is important about the idea of transworld depravity is that if a person suffers from it, then it wasn’t within God’s power to actualize any world in which that person is significantly free but does no wrong—that is, a world in which he produces moral good but no moral evil.” (48) Your expository project in this paper is to explain how this notion of transworld depravity shows that God and evil can possibly coexist. Your critical project in this paper is to present, explain, and possibly respond to some objections to Plantinga's argument.

This critical thesis will be developed in the final sections of the paper, but your thesis should be stated clearly and summarized briefly in the introduction. Develop your ideas, sentences, and paragraphs carefully so that your audience can clearly follow the argument you are making. Show that you understand the subtleties and important distinctions regarding the problem.

Papers must conform to the Philosophy Department Writing Guidelines.

Put the paper in your Google Doc (last name Evil) at the bottom with the title in bold: Plantinga's Freewill Defense. Papers with spelling, grammar, or structure errors will not be accepted. Length: I am not required a specific number of words. This is a complicated assignment with sophisticated arguments. A paper that does a thorough job of answering the questions above will have a commensurate length.

The paper should be completed by 11:00 am on Tuesday, Sept. 27.

Paper Assignment 2: van Inwagen's Theodicy.

In “The Problem of Evil, the Problem of Air, and the Problem of Silence,” Peter van Inwagen gives a defense that is alleged to defeat Draper’s inductive argument from evil. Draper argues that P(O/HI) is much greater than the P(O/theism). Van Inwagen argues that “for all we know, every possible world that contains higher level sentient creatures either contains patterns of suffering morally equivalent to those recorded by S, or else is massively irregular.” The expository task of your paper is to clearly, accurately, and concisely explain how it is that VI’s thesis defeats Draper’s thesis, as VI sees it. Given the length and complexity of the arguments, that will require making the right choices about which sub-arguments and points to exclude, and which ones to include in order to explain the overall structure of the dispute. The evaluation task of your paper will be to assess how effective VI’s argument is at undercutting Draper’s argument. Should we suspend judgment with VI or draw a prima facie conclusion with Draper? Are there any responses available to Draper? Can VI’s argument be improved.

Papers must conform to the Philosophy Department Writing Guidelines.

Put the paper in your Google Doc (last name Evil) at the bottom with the title in bold: Plantinga's Freewill Defense. Papers with spelling, grammar, or structure errors will not be accepted. Length: I am not requiring a specific number of words. This is a complicated assignment with sophisticated arguments. A paper that does a thorough job of answering the questions above will have a commensurate length. Given the details of the two positions, a good paper will avoid digressions into issues that are not essential to the questions given above.

The paper should be completed by 11:00 am on Tuesday, Oct. 25.

Paper Assignment 3: Skeptical Theism

Skeptical theists like Wykstra ("The Humean Obstacle to Evidential Arguments From Suffering: On Avoiding the Evils of Appearance") and Alston ("The Inductive Problem of Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition") maintain that arguments from evil like Rowe's () are undercut by our inability to understand the reason's God may have for permitting suffering. Exposition: Give a charitable reconstruction and explanation of one of these skeptical theist arguments. Critical Evaluation: then give a philosophically substantial critical evaluation of that argument that raises at least two specific criticisms of its claims. Your thesis can concur or disagree with the author, but you must consider objections to it.

Papers must conform to the Philosophy Department Writing Guidelines.

Put the paper in your Google Doc (last name Evil) at the bottom with the title in bold: Skeptical Theism. Papers with spelling, grammar, or structure errors will not be accepted. Length: I am not requiring a specific number of words. This is a complicated assignment with sophisticated arguments. A paper that does a thorough job of answering the questions above will have a commensurate length. Given the details of the two positions, a good paper will avoid digressions into issues that are not essential to the questions given above.

The paper should be completed by 11:00 am on Tuesday, Nov. 29.

Paper Assignment 4: Presentation Paper Exposition: Write a paper in which you charitably and accurately reconstruct and explain the central argument offered by the paper that you did you class presentation on. Critical Evaluation: Then give a careful critical evaluation of that argument. Offer at least two specific and serious objections that are directed at that argument. Develop these objections to make them as strong as possible. Consider possible rejoinders that the offer could offer. Draw a conclusion about the results of this exchange.

Papers must conform to the Philosophy Department Writing Guidelines.

Put the paper in your Google Doc (last name Evil) at the bottom with the title in bold: Presentation Paper. Papers with spelling, grammar, or structure errors will not be accepted. Length: I am not required a specific number of words. This is a complicated assignment with sophisticated arguments. A paper that does a thorough job of answering the questions above will have a commensurate length.

The paper should be completed by 11:00 am on Thursday, Dec. 15.