Paper Assignment (due T16 C.O.B.)

Phil 402
Dr. Smith
Paper Assignment 1


Due Date: T16, C.O.B.

Length: 5-7 pages, typed, double-spaced, using Times New Roman, 10-12 point font

Assignment: Choose an important issue in philosophy of religion that interests you. It should be clear from your paper why this issue is important. Frame the issue or question, then defend your own answer to the question OR subject another person’s argument to critical evaluation and defend your assessment of that person’s argument. A few topic suggestions are listed below; you may choose a topic that is on the list or you may write on some other topic.

Constraints:

 You may not recycle a paper you’ve written for another class. Nor may you use this paper for a future class.

 Your paper topic should be manageable; that is, it should be possible to write a good, 5-7 page paper on this topic. Your discussion should not be superficial, repetitive, or padded with filler.

 Your topic should clearly fall within philosophy of religion. If you have any doubts about whether your topic is acceptable, please run it by me.


Point Value: 175

Documentation: Include a documentation statement at the end of your paper. If no help was received, simply type “No help of any kind was received on this paper”. If you did receive help, indicate who gave you the help and what kind or kinds of help you received. See page 2 of this document for my policy on permissible and impermissible help.

Other Specifications: The last 4 digits of your social security number should appear on the title page. Your name should not appear anywhere on your paper. This is to make sure that I do not know whose paper I am grading. Please staple your papers and number your pages.

Keep a back-up copy of your paper!!

Your paper must be submitted to my university email account.



Audience: A reasonably intelligent person who is not in this class and has not read the authors you discuss should be able to understand their views by reading your paper. You will need to define any terms that would be unfamiliar to your target audience. If an author uses a term (e.g., ‘freedom’) in a non-standard sense, be sure to indicate how the author defines the term. In addition to describing the author’s view, you will need to explain why the author takes a particular stance on an issue. It is not enough to state an author’s argument; you must also explain the reasoning in your own words. I’m looking for evidence that you understand the philosophical issue you are discussing. I’m also looking for evidence of your ability to engage in sustained philosophical analysis.


Drafts: I am happy to meet with you to discuss your paper. I am also happy to read drafts; however, to ensure that I have time to give you useful feedback, you should get the draft to me at least 2 days before the paper is due. I can probably still read it after that point, but how much feedback I can give you will depend on how many drafts have been turned in. Furthermore, if there’s some major problem with your paper, you’ll want to know this while you still have time to correct it.


Permissible Help: In addition to consulting me, you may get help from an outside reader. The Writing Center is located on the first floor of Fairchild Hall in room 1A82. It is open Monday through Friday, periods 2 to 6. They are also open from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., Sunday through Thursday. The Writing Center keeps an online appointment schedule; you can access it by going to the Registrar’s website. Although it is best, especially during busy times of the semester, to make an appointment, the Writing Center will take walk-ins IF time permits. Your reader may check for all the hallmarks of good writing – e.g., grammatical correctness, organization, focus and clarity. Your reader may also ask substantive questions as a way of helping you express yourself more clearly and may raise objections to your thesis. However, it is decidedly not permissible for your reader to answer those substantive questions and objections he poses. Nor is it permissible for him to correct your description of a philosopher’s view. Your reader may, however, point out that your interpretation is controversial or misleading. Again, any help that you receive must be documented; in your documentation, be sure to indicate both the source of help and the kind of help you got from that source. If you have a friend read your paper, make sure your friend has high standards and is not afraid to correct you.


Suggested Topics

1. Pike argues that certain common assumptions jointly produce a conflict between God’s existence and human free will. Identify and explain (where necessary) the assumptions that produce this result. It should be clear how each of these assumptions contributes to the conflict between God’s existence and human free will. Using examples, illustrate the conflict. Then do one of the following:

- discuss Boethius’ solution, consider how Pike would respond (see the online version of his article for this, available via JSTOR), and discuss whether Pike is correct to reject Boethius’ solution

- discuss one or more possible solutions and evaluate each for their adequacy



2. Consider a specific version of the ontological argument. State and explain an objection to the ontological argument OTHER than Gaunilo’s island objection. Then, discuss how a proponent of this version of the ontological argument might or should respond to the objection. Finally, assess the damage done to the argument by the objection (you can do this by considering whether the response the proponent of the argument offers or the response you offer is adequate).



3. State and explain the moral argument for the existence of God – see either the article in your text or C.S. Lewis’ moral argument for the existence of God. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of this argument and take a stance on its overall power.


Other possibilities: (a) discuss the evidence for miracles, viz., the question of whether there can ever be sufficient evidence for miracles – evidence sufficient to make the belief that a miracle has occurred rational, (b) discuss the debate between religious realists and religious non-realists (see the articles in your text), (c) State and explain Pascal’s Wager, then discuss whether Pascal is right when he claims that it is more rational to bet on God’s existing than to bet against there being a God, etc..