Short Paper #1: Disagreeing about God Paper

Given the views that Oppy, Feldman, and McCormick (IEP entry on Atheism) express about disagreements and justifications for atheism, what is your considered view about what would be required to make atheism reasonable. That is, it may not be a reasonable conclusion, but what would be generally required to make it reasonable? Does the atheist need to provide deductive proof, inductive proof, rebuttals to all the arguments for God, positive arguments for God’s non-existence, etc.? What is not required of the reasonable atheist? What should we conclude from the fact that reasonable, epistemic peers disagree about the atheist conclusion? Is agnosticism a more reasonable response to the disagreements about God? What would be required to justify atheism over agnosticism?

Your paper should be at least 1000 words. It should be free of spelling, grammar, punctuation, and structure errors. It should conform to the Philosophy Department Writing Guidelines. All sources should be cited. For the purposes of this paper, it will be sufficient to cite the three authors like this: Oppy says, “quote. . . .”

You paper should be entered in your Google Doc at the bottom with the heading (In bold) “Disagreeing about God” It is due by class time, Monday, Sept. 17.