Questions: (The total possible mark for this assignment is 100 marks.)
1. Short Essay Question: (90 marks) Consider the three arguments in support of the existence of God:
The Ontological argument, the Cosmological Argument, and the Teleological Argument. Provide concise
formulations of each of these three competing arguments by making reference to the authors included in
our course readings. Which argument offers the most plausible justification for the existence of God?
Provide an argument in support of your conclusion.
2. Short Response Question: (10 marks) You should try to limit yourself to two or three paragraphs for
this question.
The logical problem of evil maintains that the God doesn’t exist because of a logical inconsistency. State
the logical problem of evil, explain the logical inconsistency it highlights, and explain why that supports
the conclusion that God doesn’t exist.
PRACTICAL GUIDE TO RESPONDING TO SHORT ANSWER QUESTIONS
Short Answer Questions – What they are all about
The purpose of a philosophical question is to inquire into the reasons in support of a position. Indeed, some philosophers contend that the answer to a philosophical question is of less importance than the reasons offered in support of the answer. Other philosophers will point out that that’s a characteristic of a philosophical question.The questions I ask usually follow a particular pattern. First, I’ll ask for some explanation of a position or an argument from a particular author. (Note: this will be your link to the required reading.) I’ll then ask for a criticism or objection to that position or argument. (This will probably also be found in the required readings.) Then I’ll ask for your assessment of the criticism and the position. In most cases, either you’ll support the criticism or the original position. In either case, what is important is the reasons you have in support of your assessment (i.e. the reasons in support of your conclusion).So, when it comes to your reasoned assessment, I’m not looking for a particular answer. I’m more concerned with your reasons in two ways. First, that you provide reasons in support of your answer and, secondly, the quality of the evidential support that those reasons provide. In short, I’m looking for your argument.This is a task that you should be able to do in 1,000 words (3-4 pages) – maximum. So, being concise is a virtue. The questions are not designed to be the basis for a research paper. Focus immediately on the question. A lengthy introduction that makes commentary on all aspects the issue and their perceived importance isn’t required. Part of your task in responding to the question is filtering out material that is not relevant.Here are some tips on how to structure your answer:Introductory paragraph: Tell the reader what your response contains. In this sense, be specific – do not say merely “I am going to raise an objection to Walsh” or (worse) “I am going to discuss Walsh.” Instead say what the objection/reply is going to be. Avoid the wasteful descent into the particular, e.g., “Philosophers have long pondered the ethics of warfare. One of the most popular topics has been just war theory. Walsh claims…” To ensure that the introduction correctly describes the paper, you might consider writing it last.Exposition: Focus on accurately explaining the argument or position the question asks you to explain. While doing this, you might keep in mind the particular objection you will also be explaining. It is beneficial to be able to clearly show how the objection is relevant.Your assessment: Your assessment should, to some degree, find you in agreement with either the original position/argument or the objection to it. This should be clearly expressed, and most importantly your reasons in support of your assessment must be clearly articulated. Do not simply give a list of objections – give one and develop it.Conclusion: Tell the reader what you have argued. Do not introduce new thoughts here – No surprises.
Assigned reading/viewing/listening The assigned readings should be read in the following order: 1. Clifford, William Kingdom. The ethics of belief. http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm
2. James, William. The will to believe. http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm3. Saint Anselm, excerpts from Proslogion. (The Ontological Argument) Chapters II – V. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.html4. Saint Thomas Aquinas, excerpts from Summa Theologica. (The Cosmological Argument). Question 2 Article 3 “Whether God exists?” http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas1.html5. David Hume, excerpts from Dialogues concerning natural religion. Part II. http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm6. William Paley. State of the argument and application of the argument continued. In Natural Theology. http://primo-pmtna01.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=UMB&search_scope=UManitoba&docId=UMB_ALMA51626888880001651&fn=permalink7. David Hume. Part X from Dialogues concerning natural religion. http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm8. MacKie, J. L. 1955. Evil and omnipotence. Mind 64: 200-212.9. Peterson, Michael, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger. 1991. The logical problem of evil. Reason and religious belief, 94-107. New York: Oxford University Press.Available in your readings package10. Hume, David. Skeptical challenge to the belief in miracles. Section X, Of Miracles, Part I. http://18th.eserver.org/hume-enquiry.html
Optional videos for viewing (available by going to Course Materials > Optional Videos)
Gerwin, Martin. Philosophy 1200 Video components.